"God" is a tyrant.

[Czernobog]

...the Bible with references of the eternal torture...

Name two.

OK, name one.

Ah, you're saying you're mistaken and you appologize for wasting our time?

Oh. So, you're saying that those who do not convert to Christianity are not condemned to Hell, and suffering for all eternity? Then I apologise, and will remember that the next time I read, or hear some Christian threaten exactly that. I will remember that the next time some moron attempts to apply Descartes's "Divine Wager".

 

[Czernobog]

So, which part of my recap did I get wrong? Let's take it point by point. Is God All-Powerful, and All-knowing? Yes, or no?

I do essay questions, not True or False.

God is the most powerful. The Bible tells us God knows His own plans, beginning to end. Next, the definition of 'omniscient' is the ability to know something as soon as it is knowable. Does God know now what I'll have for lunch a year from now next Wednesday? The Bible doesn't discuss that detail, so people have differing opinions on that. What we do know is that as soon as it is knowable, God does know it.

Huh. Again, you equivocate. So, God is neither omniscient, nor omnipotent. Interesting, as that allows for a version of the Christian God that is capable of mistakes. However that would seem to be in conflict with both doctrine, and dogma of pretty much every mainstream Christian tradition that I am aware of.

 

[Czernobog]

All he is saying is that if you reject him, you will live in the absence of him. He doesn't exist to serve you but he will accept you if you accept him. It appears that you don't, which is your choice.

No, it's not. The Bible is quite visceral, particularly in Revelations, in it's descriptions of the suffering of the damned. Jesus was also quite vivid in his description of Hell in his story of the suffering of the Rich man in Hell. You are either ignorant of what the Bible says, of you are trying to understate the case, now that it is being called out. Because, frankly, I am separated from that God now, and I do not feel terribly tortured. So, if that is all the Bible is referring to, then it greatly overstated it's case.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

One thing you fail to realize. God gave us a choice.

Yeah - submit, or suffer eternal pain, and suffering. Lenin gave the people of the USSR a similar choice. Pinochet gave the people of Chile a similar choice. Every dictator in history gave their subjected people a similar choice. That is tyranny, whether you wish to recognise it, or not.

 

[Czernobog]

By all means, let's do that. Basically, the response is that of a Tyrant: "Who do you think you are to question me?!?!'

While we're at it, let's look at Job, period. Here we have God destroying a man, for no other reason than he was manipulated into it over a bet - a bet - with Satan (or Lucifer, if that is less offensive to our Jewish residents). Now, The Theists are going to quickly point out that God replaced everything he took, but so what. First, replaced? Really? Tell that to a parent. Ask a parent who has lost a child if subsequent children replaced the one they lost. Even beyond that, allow me to take away eve3ry single thing you own, destroy your reputation, and destroy your life. Then 6 months later, I'll rebuild it all for you. Did the rebuilding make up for what I did? Anyone who thinks it does, should watch Trading Places.

And we're expected to be,lieve that this is an infinitely wise, generous, and loving God? I think not.

Are you aware that originally the Book of Job was a play? It's theme was to answer the age old question of why God allows bad things to happen to good people.

And your point is...? Ding was the one who wanted to use the book of Job as a defense of God. I merely pointed out why it was a poor choice. Incidentally, as an explanation of "Why God lets bad things happen to good people", it's a pretty poor example of that, as well - for the same reasons I cited.

 

[Brynmr]

How is this god forcing you to convert to Christianity?

It's the whole fear of consequences thing. The whole reason for giving such detailed descriptions of all of the horrors that await those who "reject God", and "
choose a life of sin" is to make the consequences of doing so frightening that one chooses to obey. When the consequences of disobedience is so severe, and unpleasant that it terrifies one into obedience, then obedience is no longer really a choice, is it?

Even if you're a Christian who believes in Hell, this isn't forcing. You're making the choice to be terrified. No one is forcing you to do anything. Your reply makes no sense.

 

[Brynmr]

And you wonder why I call God, as presented by Christianity, a tyrant?

Why are you even going this god the time of day if he's such a tyrant to you. Why not just throw him away. Are you having a spiritual crisis of some kind?

 

[Czernobog]

How is this god forcing you to convert to Christianity?

It's the whole fear of consequences thing. The whole reason for giving such detailed descriptions of all of the horrors that await those who "reject God", and "
choose a life of sin" is to make the consequences of doing so frightening that one chooses to obey. When the consequences of disobedience is so severe, and unpleasant that it terrifies one into obedience, then obedience is no longer really a choice, is it?

Even if you're a Christian who believes in Hell, this isn't forcing. You're making the choice to be terrified. No one is forcing you to do anything. Your reply makes no sense.

That's bullshit, and you know it. The entire point of Hell is to be so unpleasant that it would be irrational to not fear being sent there. It is simple coercion.

 

[Czernobog]

And you wonder why I call God, as presented by Christianity, a tyrant?

Why are you even going this god the time of day if he's such a tyrant to you. Why not just throw him away. Are you having a spiritual crisis of some kind?

Nope. I'm merely pointing out the cognitive dissonance of a "loving God" with a God who must resort to threats in order to coerce obedience.

 

[Vastator]

Gotta have room to spin huh...?

Ever notice when you stop spinning it seems as if everything is still spinning? I am advocating that the spin stops. Give it a moment and you may realize it.

Then by all means quit dodging simple yes or no propositions... Since you fully advocate stopping the spin, as I have suggested to you... Lead the way.

 

[Meriweather]

Oh. So, you're saying that those who do not convert to Christianity are not condemned to Hell, and suffering for all eternity? Then I apologise, and will remember that the next time I read, or hear some Christian threaten exactly that. I will remember that the next time some moron attempts to apply Descartes's "Divine Wager".

Now you are beginning to understand. Only a few Christian denominations proclaim this. The majority do not. Not that anyone believes in a free pass.

The question people need to ask themselves is, "If I have no interest in God in this life, why would I choose to spend an eternity with Him?"

As we see on this forum, even atheists seem to take a great interest in God.

 

[Meriweather]

Huh. Again, you equivocate. So, God is neither omniscient, nor omnipotent. Interesting, as that allows for a version of the Christian God that is capable of mistakes. However that would seem to be in conflict with both doctrine, and dogma of pretty much every mainstream Christian tradition that I am aware of.

No equivocation. I am saying flat out that God meets the original definitions of any 'Omni'. He is the most powerful. He does know all there is to know when it is knowable. What is too often spun is the definition. This does not mean God is capable of mistakes. No, it is not in conflict with doctrine/dogma of the Church.

 

[Meriweather]

And your point is...? Ding was the one who wanted to use the book of Job as a defense of God. I merely pointed out why it was a poor choice. Incidentally, as an explanation of "Why God lets bad things happen to good people", it's a pretty poor example of that, as well - for the same reasons I cited.

Shrug. So write your own play. Simply because the book has no meaning for you doesn't mean it holds no meaning for others. To say it should have no meaning for others because you don't agree with it seems a strange proposition. Even stranger is people changing the theme and context of a Bible context, and thinking everyone should now follow the changed theme.

To be clear, some Christian denominations insist every word in the Bible is literally true. They seem genuinely perplexed and then angry when others show that facts don't support that supposition. This is why I believe it is vital to go back to the original culture and history--and language--for proper context.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh. So, you're saying that those who do not convert to Christianity are not condemned to Hell, and suffering for all eternity? Then I apologise, and will remember that the next time I read, or hear some Christian threaten exactly that. I will remember that the next time some moron attempts to apply Descartes's "Divine Wager".

Now you are beginning to understand. Only a few Christian denominations proclaim this. The majority do not. Not that anyone believes in a free pass.

The question people need to ask themselves is, "If I have no interest in God in this life, why would I choose to spend an eternity with Him?"

As we see on this forum, even atheists seem to take a great interest in God.

Yeah...I don't know of a single mainstream Christian denomination that presents Hell as a positive, or even a neutral place to go. You seem to be presenting Hell as just "an alternative for people who don't want to hang out with God". I don't know of a single mainstream Christian denomination that makes that claim. Mind if I ask what denomination you are?

 

[Czernobog]

Huh. Again, you equivocate. So, God is neither omniscient, nor omnipotent. Interesting, as that allows for a version of the Christian God that is capable of mistakes. However that would seem to be in conflict with both doctrine, and dogma of pretty much every mainstream Christian tradition that I am aware of.

No equivocation. I am saying flat out that God meets the original definitions of any 'Omni'. He is the most powerful. He does know all there is to know when it is knowable. What is too often spun is the definition. This does not mean God is capable of mistakes. No, it is not in conflict with doctrine/dogma of the Church.

"He is most powerful" is not synonymous with "all-powerful". You are equivocating. He "knows all things when they are knowable" is not all-knowing. That is equivocating. Omniscient means just that. It means there is no limitation to the knowledge. By adding the "...when they are knowable" Puts a limitation on the knowledge, and only adds questions. When they are knowable by whom, and by what standard?

 

[Meriweather]

Yeah...I don't know of a single mainstream Christian denomination that presents Hell as a positive, or even a neutral place to go. You seem to be presenting Hell as just "an alternative for people who don't want to hang out with God". I don't know of a single mainstream Christian denomination that makes that claim. Mind if I ask what denomination you are?

I am not presenting hell as positive or even neutral. I am saying it is an existence without God, which is the way the Catholic Church presents it. From both my experience and point of view, an existence without God is "hellish." It may not seem that way to you. It is Catholic teaching that God does not send people to hell--they choose hell.

 

[Meriweather]

"He is most powerful" is not synonymous with "all-powerful". You are equivocating. He "knows all things when they are knowable" is not all-knowing. That is equivocating. Omniscient means just that. It means there is no limitation to the knowledge. By adding the "...when they are knowable" Puts a limitation on the knowledge, and only adds questions. When they are knowable by whom, and by what standard?

Again, I am giving you the original definitions--not the definitions you are proposing. No one can know that which is not yet knowable. If it is knowable, then God knows it. He doesn't just know some of what is knowable--He knows ALL that is knowable.

 

[expat_panama]

...the Bible with references of the eternal torture...

Name two. OK, name one. Ah, you're saying you're mistaken and you appologize for wasting our time?

Oh. So, you're saying that....

Hey guy, I'm not saying anything until I find out what the thread topic is. You said it's that God's a tyrant because the Bible's supposedly filled with "with references of the eternal torture..". When I saw that I figured that whoa-- this was serious and I needed to know more. So I looked (plenty of places to search the Bible, say at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. ) I didn't find any. I just wanted to know if like maybe we're not talking about the same Bible or something.

 

[BreezeWood]

"If I have no interest in God in this life, why would I choose to spend an eternity with Him?"

typical christian slander, it is doubtful anyone from Earth spends any time with the Almighty ... admission to the Everlasting is earned by the Triumph of Good vs Evil, choosing christianity for the reason to be admitted is pure folly if not a prescription for certain failure.

 

[RWNJ]

"If I have no interest in God in this life, why would I choose to spend an eternity with Him?"

typical christian slander, it is doubtful anyone from Earth spends any time with the Almighty ... admission to the Everlasting is earned by the Triumph of Good vs Evil, choosing christianity for the reason to be admitted is pure folly if not a prescription for certain failure.

I spend time with the Almighty every day. And I chose to be a Christian because He loved me enough to die for my sins. Also, admission to the Everlasting is earned by admitting that you are a sinner and asking God to forgive your sins.

 

[Czernobog]

"He is most powerful" is not synonymous with "all-powerful". You are equivocating. He "knows all things when they are knowable" is not all-knowing. That is equivocating. Omniscient means just that. It means there is no limitation to the knowledge. By adding the "...when they are knowable" Puts a limitation on the knowledge, and only adds questions. When they are knowable by whom, and by what standard?

Again, I am giving you the original definitions--not the definitions you are proposing. No one can know that which is not yet knowable. If it is knowable, then God knows it. He doesn't just know some of what is knowable--He knows ALL that is knowable.

No you're not. The definition is the definition. Omnipotent: almighty or infinite in power. Plain and simple. No eqivocation. That either describes the God of Christianity, or it does not. Omniscient: having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. That either describes the Christian God, or it does not.

You want to play with the definition, because you want your God to be All Powerful, and All-Knowing, without your God having to be responsible for the consequences of doing the things he did, in the manner in which he did them, while being all powerful, and all-knowing.