Christians would have us believe that God loves us all, Muslims claim Allah is Compassionate and Merciful.

Then why to both religions claim that God will send followers of other Faiths will burn in a lake of fire? That doesn't seem like love, that seems like authoritarian coercion.

It "seems" like that in your opinion but to someone who knows what they are talking about it dosnt seem so outrageous.

It "seems" like that in your opinion but to someone who knows what they are talking about it dosnt seem so outrageous.

Considering "Love me or BURN!" is a threat, is just an opinion? You'd love it in Dictatorship

Considering "Love me or BURN!" is a threat, is just an opinion? You'd love it in Dictatorship

I see youve put quotation marks around what youve said please go into the Bible and bring out that quote, chapter and verse plz.

I see youve put quotation marks around what youve said please go into the Bible and bring out that quote, chapter and verse plz.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

"Love me or BURN!"

Nope not the same, try again. The fact is he dosnt say anything like that but someone like you who is so ignorant of what the scriptures say will never understand that.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Assuming a god exists and he gives you a logical choice of intelligently deciding between life or death, there is plenty stupidity abounding to decline such an offer.

Seeing as though there is no guarantee of a god existing, I place you as just as much a troll as Sammy in that you insist on pissing all over someone elses preconceived notions in substitution of your own.

Because those religions are hypocritical?

God IS love though.

Assuming a god exists and he gives you a logical choice of intelligently deciding between life or death, there is plenty stupidity abounding to decline such an offer.

I agree that it is stupid not to suck your dad's cock if he is holding a gun to your head and you don't want to die. But to get the analogy just right, think of hell as a flaming bullet and your dad saying shit like "but you have to want it, you have to love me and want to service me, but it can't be for selfish reasons like not wanting to die!" to really psychologically fuck you up. :)

^ Here's my analogy.
Your hungry. There's some delicious food in front of you that's there for the taking. You either take it and are relieved, or you don't and you starve. Your choice!!

God is just a word that represents everything. Life, love, infinity, yourself, whatever.
You have the choice to love God; that is everything the word god represents. If you choose to love life, love, infinity, yourself etc, then you will feel that love whenever you experience any of those things.

Or you can choose not to love. Reject, hate, fear anything and you'll experience a degree of hell whenever you encounter that thing.
You hate spiders? You'll experience hatred when you encounter a spider. Hatred is not a heavenly feeling. You wanna love spiders? You'll experience love whenever you see a spider. Love is a heavenly feeling.
It's your choice.

There's a cool quote from "Waking Life" that says: In hell you sink to the level of your lack of love. In heaven you rise to the level of your fulness of love.


And one more thing. Hell is no more a burning lake of fire than god is a bearded man sitting on a cloud.

^ I wasn't referring to your version of God, which doesn't appear to be a personal being, but to the Christian God that Christians generally believe in. Besides, all you've done is said "love everything in life", but replaced "everything in life" with "God"... not exactly amazing. I'm for embracing life, but I don't call it "God", I call it "the universe".

There's a cool quote from "Waking Life" that says: In hell you sink to the level of your lack of love. In heaven you rise to the level of your fulness of love.

"Waking Life" is a pseudo-philosophical piece of crap that features crackpots like Alex Jones. No offence, but it had to be one of the most cringe worthy movies I have ever seen when the people were getting off on the sound of their voice, but saying things that were either clearly wrong or nothing at all. A few of the people in the movie were OK though (Robert Solomon).

Anyways, I remember this cool quote from Voltaire that went something like this: "pantheism is just polite atheism."

^^God goes beyond the universe. :p

^^God goes beyond the universe. :p

And you're a fucking idiot. I was talking about "pantheism", where God is nothing but the universe, because Beany's post had a heavy pantheistic connotation. If I were going to say God is the universe, but goes beyond the universe too, I would have said "panentheism". Mark the distinction for me. Mark it.

Now fuck off.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

"Love me or BURN!"

Nope not the same, try again. The fact is he dosnt say anything like that but someone like you who is so ignorant of what the scriptures say will never understand that.

That is definitely the same thing

I believe that god is benevolent, but I don't think that god has emotion in our sense of the term. I think that he cares about us and hopes that we do our best to be decent human beings. But I don't think that he interferes, because that would fuck with Free will, and without free will what's the point of creation?

I think that does an adequate job of explaining why God allows suffering on Earth. At the same time it doesn't make god wrathful or vengeful when he doesn't save a man who is starving to death in Burma. (Basically I think that humans cause the majority of the suffering on the Earth themselves, that's a different discussion though.)

I personally don't believe that there is a hell. I don't think that a benevolent god would punish a person for eternity. I especially don't think that he's going to send someone to hell for not following the right religion. I also don't think that a benevolent god would send someone to hell, even Hitler, for their misdeeds in this life. I think he would offer some sort of appropriate penance.

Yar now I do be finished. yar....

How does creating a world that doesn't involve floods, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning and mudslides that kill millions of people interfere with freewill?

Also, let me ask you this: do you believe god can do absolutely anything? If so, then he should be able to make the perfect world, where "evil" is impossible, yet we still have freewill.

How does creating a world that doesn't involve floods, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes and lightning that kills millions of people interfere with freewill?

Also, let me ask you this: do you believe god can do absolutely anything? If so, then he should be able to make the perfect world, where "evil" is impossible, yet we still have freewill.

I don't see how natural disasters interfere with free will, they're just another variable that must be considered living in our world.
In response to your second point. Yes he could have made a perfect world, but he didn't. I'm not quite sure a world without any hardship would be worth living. The contrast is what makes something beautiful or ugly, good or evil. Maybe the whole point is that we're supposed to evolve and become better and become more like him that way.

Oh and yes I believe in an all powerful god and hence not bound by any of his own laws I.E. logic.

I don't see how natural disasters interfere with free will, they're just another variable that must be considered living in our world.

So if God made everything, why did he make a world involving natural disasters, if he is all loving? I mean, natural disasters take lives and ruin families.

In response to your second point. Yes he could have made a perfect world, but he didn't. I'm not quite sure a world without any hardship would be worth living. The contrast is what makes something beautiful or ugly, good or evil. Maybe the whole point is that we're supposed to evolve and become better and become more like him that way.

But he could make a world where the distinction between good and evil isn't required for life to be worth living, considering he can do anything.

And you're a fucking idiot. I was talking about "pantheism", where God is nothing but the universe, because Beany's post had a heavy pantheistic connotation. If I were going to say God is the universe, but goes beyond the universe too, I would have said "panentheism". Mark the distinction for me. Mark it.

Now fuck off.

Besides, all you've done is said "love everything in life", but replaced "everything in life" with "God"... not exactly amazing. I'm for embracing life, but I don't call it "God", I call it "the universe".

mhmm.

So if God made everything, why did he make a world involving natural disasters, if he is all loving? I mean, natural disasters take lives and ruin families.



But he could make a world where the distinction between good and evil isn't required for life to be worth living, considering he can do anything.

Perosnally I think that personal disasters can lead to good, that a person may be made better by them. I think that suffering has a place in our world. That said I rarely have to suffer anything, so I can say that by virtue of the fact that I never suffer.

I also think that while God is all powerful and can do anything, he can do anything that can be done in any case. God could not making suffering happiness. They are two differant things. I think that perhasp for a living being to exist , as a living being, it has to have a dependancy on others, on the world around it. I think that for a living being to be a living being it has to actually live, not just exist.

But, once again, I cant think of any scripture to support this at the moment, and can't reallly be arsed to ... Really I'm just clouding the thread by throwing stuff out there :rolleyes:

You have to consider that suffering may only be a result of what we think about an event. In which case we suffer due to our choices about who and what we are in life.
Can you see the positive in life's hardships or the negative?

Christians would have us believe that God loves us all, Muslims claim Allah is Compassionate and Merciful.

Then why to both religions claim that God will send followers of other Faiths will burn in a lake of fire


Short answer--because they are WRONG!!!

Abrahamic religions are essentially religions of fear and denial, archaic artifacts of the Piscean Age.

Then why to both religions claim that God will send followers of other Faiths will burn in a lake of fire? That doesn't seem like love, that seems like authoritarian coercion.

What you describe is authoritarian coercion, but it's just simply not what the Abrahmaic literature supports.

Some of the sects that have abound from the literature make those claims, but the writings don't say you have to be a part of a particular religion.

Also, the lake of fire is a reference to Jesus' allegory of being sent through a flame to remove impurities (just so you know, all three Abrahmaic religions place Jesus as a prophet). A bath of fire, as The Presidents of the United States of America (a damned good band, btw) put it.

"Ain't nothin' like a bath of fire to get this deep down dirt out of me." -TPotUSoA

I suggest reading the books with open eyes. It won't make you a Christian, Jew, or Muslim...so don't be afraid, hehe. It will, however, give you a very deep appreciation for the intelligence, honesty, diligence, and creativity of each and every one of the authors.

You have to consider that suffering may only be a result of what we think about an event. In which case we suffer due to our choices about who and what we are in life.
Can you see the positive in life's hardships or the negative?

Well God could make a weird where there it's impossible to see negatives yet still have free will if he is all-powerful. In fact, he could make a world without mental illness too. No more fucking depression or schizophrenia.

Perosnally I think that personal disasters can lead to good, that a person may be made better by them. I think that suffering has a place in our world. That said I rarely have to suffer anything, so I can say that by virtue of the fact that I never suffer.

Your argument fails from the start. Note you said may, ignoring all the times when it simply rips families apart, destroying not only the life of the dead individual, but his loved ones too.

Once again, suffering may have a place in our world. But, if God can do anything, he can make the best world possible, a grand world without suffering where you wouldn't be saying "this is dull cause there's no suffering" because dullness is a form of suffering!

Everything else you have said is utter tosh.

[b]Also, the lake of fire is a reference to Jesus' allegory of being sent through a flame to remove impurities (just so you know, all three Abrahmaic religions place Jesus as a prophet). A bath of fire, as The Presidents of the United States of America (a damned good band, btw) put it.

What about all the parts where he says about non-followers being in a place of gnashing teeth? I would say that that is pretty coercive.

mhmm.

Congratulations. You're too retarded to mark the distinction. Now fuck off.

Biting, clawing, weeping, gnashing of teeth. Sounds like hunger, anger, sorrow, and tenseness as a result of living a life of lies - hunger for peace, anger at self, sorrow at loss, and the complete inability to relax at the shear magnitude of how raw you've fucked yourself over because you just couldn't get over your damned pity and pride and show some gratitude for all the amazing beauty in life. I still don't see where any of the texts support a demon reigned inferno full of torture. (Smiting, however, is supported. If no god is what you want, no god is what you get. Good bye, existence.)

Of course, feel free to ignore everything I say. After all, I read the whole of all Abrahmaic texts as allegory, so you'd be hard pressed to find a member of any of the various sects that agree with me.

How ironic that the supposed word of God can be read in some many different ways. If I were a God and wanted people to follow me, I would have written it like a simplified stereo manual.

I don't see how natural disasters interfere with free will, they're just another variable that must be considered living in our world.
In response to your second point. Yes he could have made a perfect world, but he didn't. I'm not quite sure a world without any hardship would be worth living. The contrast is what makes something beautiful or ugly, good or evil. Maybe the whole point is that we're supposed to evolve and become better and become more like him that way.

Oh and yes I believe in an all powerful god and hence not bound by any of his own laws I.E. logic.

The contrast argument is by far one of the weakest ones that i've heard. When you pick a band to put on your iPod, do you pick it because it contrasts with your next door neighbor's garage band? No you pick something you like because you like it. You listen to a beautiful song because it is beautiful, you don't need to listen to shitty stuff to realize what's good and whats bad. You don't need to visit a garbage dump to realize the sunset is beautiful. You don't need to witness murder to realize donating to the less fortunate is good. That is just a load of crap.

"Oh and yes I believe in an all powerful god and hence not bound by any of his own laws I.E. logic."

There is no law of logic. Logic is reasoning. If god doesn't follow logic he becomes illogical and therefore as illogical he is subject to disbelief.

Well God could make a weird where there it's impossible to see negatives yet still have free will if he is all-powerful. In fact, he could make a world without mental illness too. No more fucking depression or schizophrenia.

I'm sure God could make it so that there was no bad, no mental illness no physical faults at all. But ,personally, whether you want to or not, I question whether a person would still be a person. I think that a person is a sum of what happens to them, what they have to deal with. You can't say that we would be the same if we didn't have the life that we did , and live in the world that we do, unless we were entirely God's puppets, and if that was the case then there would be no problem with any pain or suffering.

I think that who we are is dependant on this world. And that were we in a perfect world the probelme would not be that we were bored, that we suffered, in my mind the problem would be that without alternative and differance, some kind of variation to perfection, that we would be robots, we would be mindless machines. As it is we seem to have little free-will, but we still have a choice, we can still seek what we feel is good, or go after what we know is bad for a purpose of pleasing ourselves.



Your argument fails from the start. Note you said may, ignoring all the times when it simply rips families apart, destroying not only the life of the dead individual, but his loved ones too.

For a start it was not an argument, it was opinion, as I tried to make clear. Mainly because I know that I can't make myself right, I can see that I may be wrong, and so I am giving you ideas, not telling you that the world is exactly this way or that. I know that my ideas are just that. I am not stating fact or trying to convince you of anything. I'm writing for my own amusement.

And surely by me saying may I have acknowledged the fact that people can actually suffer and become worse from suffering? Suffering can harm people, and this harm can lead people to help or harm others. I don't knw the answer I was stating the possibility that good can come from bad, that sometimes suffering could make a person better.

Once again, suffering may have a place in our world. But, if God can do anything, he can make the best world possible, a grand world without suffering where you wouldn't be saying "this is dull cause there's no suffering" because dullness is a form of suffering!

Everything else you have said is utter tosh.

What about all the parts where he says about non-followers being in a place of gnashing teeth? I would say that that is pretty coercive.

I think Hex answered the last part quite well. It echoes my interpretation from the Bible that hell is not God punishing you in a pit for eternity, it is the realisation that you have done wrong, a kind of path to seeking forgiveness. The pain won't come from flaming pits, it'll come from you realising the extent of the bad things you have done , and truly feeling regret and sorrow for them.

How ironic that the supposed word of God can be read in some many different ways. If I were a God and wanted people to follow me, I would have written it like a simplified stereo manual.

Personally I don't agree, on the grouds that God is not a simple being, not an idiot, the Bible is not a manual describing how to put up your Ikea shelf, and never was supposed to be. Ideas are being communicated, for you to think about. We are supposed to have been created differant to animals, we have the capacity to think. Why would we have that capacity if we weren't supposed to use it? Not to mention that the Bible is just the writings of stories and beliefs of a bunch of guys, of course it's gonna be fucked.

How ironic that the supposed word of God can be read in some many different ways. If I were a God and wanted people to follow me, I would have written it like a simplified stereo manual.

I actually think that's consistent that it can be read in so many different ways. Your filter determines how you read it, and whether or not you're able to see any degree of truth in it, or reject it outright. I think, no matter what your filter is, that outright rejection of such an influential literary work is plain ignorant. Abrahmaic texts have impacted several thousand years of humanity - whether or not the individual reading them takes the book as reality or well written allegory does not diminish the wide subject range and in depth coverage of each subject.

Why doth thou attack the Bible? It carries the same attribute that all allegory does: interpretable.

And you've totally failed to understand what I meant. I'm not denying it's a great allegorical work. It would be simply cruel to make it so allegorical if it is to be thee truth, because then all interpretations become incommensurable to extent, which is really fucked up if it is to be of such life-altering importance, with possible immanent danger for this supposedly existent thing called the soul if interpreted wrong.

I agree that to an extent, it is great because it is so vague in places, that loads of crap can be read into it.

Mr. Ghost, I got what you were saying. I was disputing the irony of it, however. Essentially, the supposed word of God should be just what you derive irony from: entirely interpretable. If God is omnipresent (that is, pantheist), then shouldn't his word be able to reach any man, no matter their filter, preconceived ideals, and prior judgments of the text?

Mr. Ghost, I got what you were saying. I was disputing the irony of it, however. Essentially, the supposed word of God should be just what you derive irony from: entirely interpretable. If God is omnipresent (that is, pantheist), then shouldn't his word be able to reach any man, no matter their filter, preconceived ideals, and prior judgments of the text?

Read: if pantheist, which many Christians do not think he is. And as Voltaire said, who I agree with, pantheism is just polite atheism. So you're essentially saying nothing but "yeah, you can interpret it any way you want!" and I wouldn't disagree with you. However, if there is a God and it is like how Christians generally perceive him, dishing out punishments, etc., he should have made it clearer.

Read: if pantheist, which many Christians do not think he is. And as Voltaire said, who I agree with, pantheism is just polite atheism. So you're essentially saying nothing but "yeah, you can interpret it any way you want!" and I wouldn't disagree with you. However, if God is like how Christians generally perceive him, dishing out punishments, etc., he should have made it clearer.

I don't think the pantheist is 'if' even if you take the Bible as pure allegory like I do. "I am alpha and omega. Darkness and light. I am all that was, is, and will be."

To me, and I may be mistaken, there is no possible interpretation in any context that takes the figure God out of the pantheist category. The only way one can interpret the character God as non-pantheist is if they haven't read the literature, or missed the claims of pantheism while reading it.

I don't think the pantheist is 'if' even if you take the Bible as pure allegory like I do. "I am alpha and omega. Darkness and light. I am all that was, is, and will be."

Of course, your pantheistic interpretation just happens to be thee correct interpretation, doesn’t it? Just like the Christians. :rolleyes:

To me, and I may be mistaken, there is no possible interpretation in any context that takes the figure God out of the pantheist category. The only way one can interpret the character God as non-pantheist is if they haven't read the literature, or missed the claims of pantheism while reading it.

You’re so wrong! The God depicted in the Bible is obviously panentheistic since he existed before the creation of the universe. Evidently, my reading is the correct reading! :p

But we’re getting off track here. I’m criticizing the concept of God as a monotheistic being that’s like an old man in the sky who dishes out punishments that is generally believed in by Christians, who, if true (which is an obvious no, in my opinion), should have made his book pretty fucking clear. There was no need for you to butt in with your pantheistic renditions.

I'm sure God could make it so that there was no bad, no mental illness no physical faults at all. But ,personally, whether you want to or not, I question whether a person would still be a person. I think that a person is a sum of what happens to them, what they have to deal with. You can't say that we would be the same if we didn't have the life that we did , and live in the world that we do, unless we were entirely God's puppets, and if that was the case then there would be no problem with any pain or suffering.

I think that who we are is dependant on this world. And that were we in a perfect world the probelme would not be that we were bored, that we suffered, in my mind the problem would be that without alternative and differance, some kind of variation to perfection, that we would be robots, we would be mindless machines. As it is we seem to have little free-will, but we still have a choice, we can still seek what we feel is good, or go after what we know is bad for a purpose of pleasing ourselves.

So what do you expect heaven to be? People seem to expect it to be perfect and without suffering, if that is the case, then will you be robots there? Seriously, you question but you question wrongly, I don’t think you realize that although it may seem a contradiction to you, but if there is a God who can do anything, meaning he can defy logic, then he can make a world void of suffering where we retain our “humanness”, whatever you mean by that.

And surely by me saying may I have acknowledged the fact that people can actually suffer and become worse from suffering? Suffering can harm people, and this harm can lead people to help or harm others. I don't knw the answer I was stating the possibility that good can come from bad, that sometimes suffering could make a person better.

Well that’s true that some “good” can come out of it, whatever you mean by “good”, but if a God exists who can do anything, then he could make a world where suffering isn’t needed for some “good” since everything is already “good”!

Personally I don't agree, on the grouds that God is not a simple being, not an idiot, the Bible is not a manual describing how to put up your Ikea shelf, and never was supposed to be. Ideas are being communicated, for you to think about. We are supposed to have been created differant to animals, we have the capacity to think. Why would we have that capacity if we weren't supposed to use it? Not to mention that the Bible is just the writings of stories and beliefs of a bunch of guys, of course it's gonna be fucked.

Well obviously it’s just the writings of a bunch of guys, but you still have to question making it obscure if the general Christian interpretation of God is the one we’re discussing (which I thought it was).

There was no need for you to butt in with your pantheistic renditions.

There is no need for you to be a prick. I had an idea and posted it.

The Real Bible tells us of a subdivision of hell; Gehenna and Sheol, the latter being the one currently in use. Gehenna is a hell reserved for God's divine enemies- Satan, Fell Angels, etc. Human beings go to Sheol rather or not they are Christian. All humans go to Sheol which is a state of unconsciousness. The word can be translated as ground roughly. So an atheist and a Christian will go to the same place when they die. The Christians will be resurrected but the non christians simply remain unconscious for the rest of eternity. Christians know shit about their religion.

By "the real Bible" do you mean the Bible in Hebrew language or what?

So what do you expect heaven to be? People seem to expect it to be perfect and without suffering, if that is the case, then will you be robots there? Seriously, you question but you question wrongly, I don’t think you realize that although it may seem a contradiction to you, but if there is a God who can do anything, meaning he can defy logic, then he can make a world void of suffering where we retain our “humanness”, whatever you mean by that.

I expect Heaven to be a place to be filled with the Good. And by the Good I mean people who don't enjoy other people suffering, who enjoy the pleasure and happiness of others and have no desire to do wrong to anyone else. My interpretation is that the Good will get to heavene and the Bad will go to some place where they will all live together, creating a sort of hell. I'm hoping that after a while people com out better.

If not ... The we're fucked.

I understand the view that if God is God he can do anything and even defy logic .(Which I've never been quite convinced by... Although I can't think why seeing as logically, I have no other alternative, and it's never seemed to let me down.) But I think that while God may be able to do anything, that once he created this Universe (My terms are gonna be a bit vague here , apologies) he imposed certain strictures on it. He created this universe and gave it a nature, the nature of this universe just happens to include suffering. So, in my view the only way God could create a 'perfect' universe without suffering is to either destroy this one (On the basis that this Universe is this universe exactly because of the rules and laws.) Or create another universe.

I;ve actually just forgot whatever bullshit I was just rattling on about.... Sorry about that... You can can just imagine I made some amazing point :rolleyes:


Well that’s true that some “good” can come out of it, whatever you mean by “good”, but if a God exists who can do anything, then he could make a world where suffering isn’t needed for some “good” since everything is already “good”!

I just think that a world where we were in perma-happiness wouldn't be a world at all... I, twistedly, think that suffering almost adds a layer of meaning to the world. I just don;t think that even God could make something be alive and not have the capacity of pain... Looks like all that duality has poisoned my mind.
Although I agree that it should have been possible that God could've madea world with no natural evil. ALthough that being said, you could draw out Genesis and argue that it comes from there.

Well obviously it’s just the writings of a bunch of guys, but you still have to question making it obscure if the general Christian interpretation of God is the one we’re discussing (which I thought it was).

I can't really argue with that I suppose. Still... What really makes sense about any general christian belief to be fair :rolleyes:


Right, I've rambled on enough, you'll have to forgive the crap way I've gone through it, I really can't be arsed to finish it properly at the moment... And can't be arsed not to do it now I've started it.

Congratulations for saying nothing at all (or at least nothing that can't be refuted by saying "god can do anything") and just stating preferences you wouldn't have if born into a painless, perfect world.

Congratulations for saying nothing at all (or at least nothing that can't be refuted by saying "god can do anything") and just stating preferences you wouldn't have if born into a painless, perfect world.

Thanks!

By "the real Bible" do you mean the Bible in Hebrew language or what?

FYI, the OT was mostly written in Aramaic, the NT in Greek. Much of the confusion results from mistranslation.

I suspect that by "real Bible," most people simply mean the version or translation they approve of.