Why is god benevolent?

[Jquestionmark]

This is EXACTLY what I mean. I say that vanity is irrelevant to natural disasters (which it IS) but still humor the argument posted against me.

Let's look at a direct quote from you:

In fact, vanity is what causes any and every form of destruction. This doesn't even have to be a biblical intrigue,, it stands alone.

There's a couple of things I want to spend some time on here.

First of all, you specifically said vanity is responsible for ANY AND EVERY form of destruction. When you say this, you make the claim that vanity causes all destruction (natural disasters being a form of destruction). You not only asserted that vanity is relevant to natural distasters, you asserted that it causes them. Coming back and saying "I say that vanity is irrelevant to natural disasters" is a contradiction of your prior claim.

Second, if you are humoring an argument (which we had no reason to believe {and still have no reason to believe, as your responses appeared sincere and are in line with your original claim}, since you had directly asserted that vanity causes all forms of destruction {natural distasters being a form of destruction}) you should make it clear. In this thread and on this section of the board, we are debating various ideas, and if we are not being sincere in our claims and only making them to entertain thoughts, we should make it clear that such is the case. I've suggested before that we could have a thread where (for mental exercise and fun) we debate for ideas that we don't necessarily believe in. I'm still all for that, but this isn't one of those threads.

If anyone is contradictory, it's you and him for bringing it up in the first place.

You brought it up in the first place when you claimed vanity was the cause of all destruction.

Even if we did bring it up first, that wouldn't make it contradictory (irrelevant, maybe, but contradictory doesn't enter into this). Contradictory: "asserting the contrary or opposite." At no point was talking about natural disasters in the context of vanity "asserting the contrary or opposite" since you are the one that asserted "vanity is what causes any and every form of destruction" in the first place. In fact, it was not only not contradictory, it was 100% relevant.

So, no, we were not being contradictory in any way, shape, or form. This is just another of many times where something you've said has been shown as being incorrect.

Even now, you have failed to tell how my past explanations are false.

The way you define and use vain and vanity is a logical fallacy called equivocation. That alone ruins everything you've said in the past.

That is how your past explanations are false: they are founded on a logical fallacy (equivocation, in case you already forgot).

YOU ARE THE ONE WITHOUT REASON. It is exemplified by the what you are saying.

Nope. I just showed how you were incorrect in your claim of us being contradictory, and your past explanations were based on a logical fallacy. The only thing exemplified by what we have said is that you are constantly incorrect, and we are quite capable of using reason.

Just in case you missed it, I've shown you to be incorrect in this claim as well.

I said that vanity not only makes you two-faced to benevolence, but it also causes immorality.

I don't understand what you mean by "two-faced to benevolence," is this a turn of phrase I'm not familiar with?

You specifically claimed it exclusively causes all immorality, something both unadulteratedawesome and I have shown to be mistaken (through your definition equivocation, overly vague use of the term, and the subjective state of moral systems).

It doesn't take a Hitler. The electricity you are using on your computer right now is resulting in someone elses poverty. When you take a shower, someone is dying of thirst. You do nothing about it out of vanity.

Or maybe I'm just a dick. Maybe I don't give a fuck about people in poverty or dying of thirst. That has nothing to do with me being vain (reminder, that means "excessively proud of or concerned about one's own appearance, qualities, achievements, etc."), maybe I just think all human life is worthless (myself included), and I'm not worried about if anyone dies (that's not vanity, just apathy).

Fortunately, that's not the case. Also, way to make an assumption that I don't do anything to try to help the problems in other parts of the world.

Why don't you get past your cradled lifestyle and see how the world really is.

I can see the world as it is quite fine. Thanks.

Do you really think that what you do, even as an average person, does not cause or continue poverty?

I'm aware. What of it?

If you cannot fathom that, then it is comical that you would think God is evil.

So, if it's vain of normal people who can have little individual effect to do anything about poverty/starvation/etc., what is it of god (who could solve the issues easily with his super-powers) to do nothing about them? If we, with normal powers, are assholes, then god, with his god powers, is a god-sized asshole.

So, no, it doesn't seem comical to think god is evil, regardless of our knowledge of the world today.

I am done with this debate.

You have been for a while, ever since we tore apart your reasoning and you refused to respond.

You all are so lost in self-righteousness that you become blind to the obvious and oblivious to complexity.
Good-bye

I'm sorry that you think that. We're just trying to show you the errors in your reasoning. I'm sorry that you've become so confused about the actual situation in this thread.

 

[Gaige]

Nobody's saying God IS evil. Malevolent and evil are two very different things. People believe in a higher power than themselves for the sake of comfort. Is that in itself not a form of vanity? Does our interpretation of God not also match what you believe to be vanity?

I myself am simply saying the God in the Old Testament, and even the Qur'an, can be considered spiteful and malevolent, simply because he strikes down anyone who doesn't live according to his way. That is what Hitler did too, was it not? Yet he's been labelled as a dictator and an atrocity. Oh I'm sure this God had a higher purpose. So did Hitler. I'm just trying to get across my point that to an outsider, God is anything but infallible.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I just figured I'd come and see if anyone has proven my past rationale wrong, which this will be my third time statingsince re-posting them.
It would seem not..


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sum1sgruj
This is EXACTLY what I mean. I say that vanity is irrelevant to natural disasters (which it IS) but still humor the argument posted against me

Let's look at a direct quote from you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sum1sgruj
In fact, vanity is what causes any and every form of destruction. This doesn't even have to be a biblical intrigue,, it stands alone

There's a couple of things I want to spend some time on here.

First of all, you specifically said vanity is responsible for ANY AND EVERY form of destruction. When you say this, you make the claim that vanity causes all destruction (natural disasters being a form of destruction). You not only asserted that vanity is relevant to natural distasters, you asserted that it causes them. Coming back and saying "I say that vanity is irrelevant to natural disasters" is a contradiction of your prior claim.

Once again, you throw up ridiculous technicality. Of course vanity doesn't cause earthquakes. Vanity causes all forms of destruction man on man.
Dude, you need to stop with that. I know you are not well informed on the concept, but you can't be that big of an idiot.

Anyways, my statement at the top pretty much summed up where I stand.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Vanity causes all forms of destruction man on man.

Alright, so your definition of vanity is self-importance. I've already pointed out the flaws in your argument, there's not much more to be done. The argument is so vague that any similarly widely-defined sin can take the place of it, which means that it being vanity isn't actually required. You use equivocation, a logical fallacy, in your premises, making the entire thing caput. Your arguments in general overlook that, even if vanity is the root cause of all immoral acts, other sins/rationales have a greater impact than self-importance on the immoral act itself (like greed, necessity, selflessness, etc). Your argument is so vague that it can't really be argued against, which makes it rather impotent.

Nothing more can really be said about that. Or, at least, I haven't thought of any other arguments at the moment. I think it would be silly for any of us to continue debating that idea until some new ideas or arguments are brought to support it or go against it, because you're clearly not going to budge.

So I have a tangential question to it that's actually related to the topic: Supposing that vanity is the root cause of all immoral acts, how exactly do we fix that so God isn't mad/upset/whatever at us for it? And a related question: How does our misbehavior justify the actions of an all-powerful-nearly-omniscient-super-being when it punishes or doesn't save innocent people from harm? Is there any reason God is infallible other than the Bible says so? And why do the sins of some people (like those waging wars, stealing, murdering, blaspheming, etc) corrupt and damn all of us? I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if I got judged with stealing because someone I was related to stole something. I had nothing to do with it besides blood relation.

 

[Ohri-Jin]

You guys should be open minded and listen to Sum1sgruj more. I agree with most what he is saying.

I believe God has forsaken us. Its mankind's own fault. We brought this upon us. He turned his back on us. However He still reaches out his hands for those that want it and need it.

Unfortunately most of the people dont deserve that chance.

Vanity is arrogance,pride and I agree its one of the issues that troubles mankind.

 

[Gaige]

I'm not saying vanity isn't a common human trait. Of course it is. But to say that only a select few turn to God, and to act like those people are above everyone else. To look down your nose at those who dare believe in the possibility of an imperfect God? How is that any less vain? Any less arrogant?

Personally, I know that humanity is 100% responsible for what they bring upon themselves, but if there really is a God, and he has forsaken us, then that's a malevolent act. And not only that, it's downright cowardly, because he isn't able to see anything through. I'd rather that a God killed me now rather than run away and only reach out a helping hand to the select few.

Keep in mind that I've got no hate for God. I'm just looking upon your theory that way.

 

[Ohri-Jin]

I agree God should erase us all if he really wants to help us. Mankind will never change and will always stay impure.

(I never read the bible or anything btw)
I also have a muslim friend and he said God and the fallen angel (Lucifer) have some agreement. Lucifer was jealous of God's creation and that led him to be banned from heaven and he was sent to hell.

Lucifer wants to prove that humans arent worth God's praise and love. So lucifer will try to do anything to lure those souls and to prove humans are full of sin etc.

God agreed to let people prove otherwise.

Both parties cant interfere physically obviously. Ofcourse its just a theory, but it did made me think.

Amidst all the chaos, pain and evil, who can stay pure? Only those that can remain pure enough is on God's side and really worth His salvation.

Looking down on non-believers means those are impure and not worth God's love and salvation.

Believers that only believe and follow God and praising him just for the sake of avoiding Hell arent worth God's salvation.

Only God can judge obviously.

My perspective:
I dont follow any religion but I do believe in a higher being/entity and I have to call that entity God to give it a persona.

I agree with that guy Robert a lot and with Sum as well.

 

[der Astronom]

You guys should be open minded and listen to Sum1sgruj more. I agree with most what he is saying.

Being open-minded doesn't mean I have to agree with what someone else is saying. Being open-minded just means I'm willing to consider whether or not what someone else is saying is possible, and of course, the only way we can point out these fallacies in the other arguments would be if we even considered the argument as being possibly true in the first case. Unfortunately, it just happens to fail on multiple grounds, and I'd appreciate it if you have more to add to the discussion (eg, clarifying some of the fallacies or answering some of our questions) rather than simply just agreeing. Just because you agree with him doesn't mean I should be inclined to.

I believe God has forsaken us. Its mankind's own fault. We brought this upon us. He turned his back on us. However He still reaches out his hands for those that want it and need it.

Oh, so now it's our fault that Adam and Eve ate a fruit and had no judgment to determine whether or not their acts were good or evil? Or that it's our fault he gave us free will and knew we could do something he wouldn't like? He brought this on himself; not us.

Unfortunately most of the people dont deserve that chance.

Vanity is arrogance,pride and I agree its one of the issues that troubles mankind.

And I still see no reason why it is more immoral over all other things that can cause immorality.

I agree God should erase us all if he really wants to help us. Mankind will never change and will always stay impure.

And I happen to think he can do us all a favor and leave us alone. He's already caused us enough trouble, and if we were less than perfect, I don't see why that's a problem; we do just fine without it.

(I never read the bible or anything btw)
I also have a muslim friend and he said God and the fallen angel (Lucifer) have some agreement. Lucifer was jealous of God's creation and that led him to be banned from heaven and he was sent to hell.

Lucifer wants to prove that humans arent worth God's praise and love. So lucifer will try to do anything to lure those souls and to prove humans are full of sin etc.

Actually, god agrees that humans are full of sin. Hence the need for the Jesus scapegoat. Unless you believe that Lucifer was acting as god in disguise sacrificing Jesus.

God agreed to let people prove otherwise.

How, by shifting your responsibilities onto Jesus by having him forgive you? That's a god not worth worshipping.

Both parties cant interfere physically obviously. Ofcourse its just a theory, but it did made me think.

What about the other questions on this thread that people have asked that address these issues? I don't believe we've ever received a satisfactory answer for them, and I think those are worth thinking over.

Amidst all the chaos, pain and evil, who can stay pure? Only those that can remain pure enough is on God's side and really worth His salvation.

You mean all the people that scapegoat someone so they don't have to be responsible to the people they've wronged? Frankly, I don't think they're particularly moral, and I don't care if that's what god thinks is right.

Looking down on non-believers means those are impure and not worth God's love and salvation.

Believers that only believe and follow God and praising him just for the sake of avoiding Hell arent worth God's salvation.

Only God can judge obviously.

I don't see why that's so obvious. Please explain why god's judgment is correct (it isn't; just take a look at all the atrocious stuff he's done in the bible, including testing people's faiths when he had no reason to, killing people that don't deserve it, and commanding the rape and murder of people, contrary to his own rules). Of course, maybe you're just taking this all on faith, since you admit you haven't read the bible, but I think it's prudent not to take any position until you know what is being said.

My perspective:
I dont follow any religion but I do believe in a higher being/entity and I have to call that entity God to give it a persona.

I agree with that guy Robert a lot and with Sum as well.

How about you actually contribute to the discussion other than simply agreeing with someone by answering some of the concerns that have come up in this thread?

 

[Ohri-Jin]

LOL I believe Jesus existed, but I dont believe he was the son of God who came out of a holy Maria who was still a virgin..I dont believe he had powers...I dont believe he died for our sins.

Thats just fabricated by human hands who put it on paper and called it the bible. IMO.
They say those words written down was people being inspired by God etc.. bit farfetched imo.

I read some of your discussions, but not all of them wall texts.. Its pointless for me to debate about this and interfere on the same level.

For 1 my native language is not English.
2 - Its hard to debate along when I havent even read the bible.
3 - I tell what I believe in and am not forcing my will onto others.

I can already tell you have a one track of mind. I dont agree with you and thats just fine, but that doesnt mean Im going to put more wood on this fire.

I rather ignore situations like that. No one wins most of the time.

 

[der Astronom]

I read some of your discussions, but not all of them wall texts.. Its pointless for me to debate about this and interfere on the same level.

And if you're just here to state your beliefs, then we're not having much of a discussion because then you can't explain why you believe what you believe other than faith, and if we were to discuss whether or not faith is a good basis for belief, that might require a separate thread on it, and if you're not willing to discuss that either, then it's not really much of a debate. And besides, there's already a "Do you Believe in God?" thread for that sort of thing. This is exactly the problem with debates in which you only state your beliefs and then claim you have no justification for them--they aren't falsifiable, and it encourages people to make arguments without having to support them. Stating your beliefs or your argument without explaining them amounts to nothing in debate.

2 - Its hard to debate along when I havent even read the bible.

Admittedly, I haven't read it entirely, but I know enough to be able to form arguments off of them. Actually, that someone can accuse your argument of being wrong simply for not having read the bible classifies as ad hominem. You can still be right about what the bible says even if you haven't read it (the converse is also true; you can have read the bible and be wrong about it).

3 - I tell what I believe in and am not forcing my will onto others.

Oh really? In a previous post, you said the following:

You guys should be open minded and listen to Sum1sgruj more.

If you're just telling people what your opinions are, then this statement was completely unnecessary; I'll be the judge of whether or not anything Sum1sgruj says is something I would like to agree with or not. Which is why I thought you just came in here to support him by saying we should agree with him because you do, and because you had no other reason for doing so. I find that fallacious and absurd to think that we're not already open minded enough to even consider the validity of Sum1sgruj's arguments (which we already did), or that we have to agree with someone just because you do.

I can already tell you have a one track of mind. I dont agree with you and thats just fine, but that doesnt mean Im going to put more wood on this fire.

Ja, and that's towards logic and rationality. Faith and ignorance offer no benefit to a debate; they are arbitrary and inconsistent, and if we care about the truth, they offer no useful means of discerning truth from fiction.

If you don't care about being logically consistent or about having proper evidence or reason to back up any of your arguments or beliefs then there's nothing to debate with you and there wasn't any good reason for posting in the first place. You're not adding any credibility to Sum1sgruj's arguments, and like I said, debate is not "let's share around ideas just for the hell of it", debate involves questioning and discussing ideas, and reasoning and explaining arguments, none of which you seem to be particularly willing to do.

I rather ignore situations like that. No one wins most of the time.

I'm not doing this because I think I'm going to win, I'm doing this because I rather enjoy the discussions that occur here. That and because I really hate seeing badly constructed arguments left unanswered, and because I think people need to see more of the flaws that most religion-based arguments contain.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Open-mindedness is the only way to venture upon something you do not understand, especially when you already have a close-minded opinion of it.

You say that God is not benevolent because He has forsaken man to the chaotic occurrences of man and nature, only to be salvaged by omitting vanity.
I say it is because He is benevolent that He does so. Human vanity is not going to stop unless it is willed by man. Giving everyone access to Heaven will eventually only result in uprising, just as Lucifer, and the cycle will happen all over again. Leaving man to it's own affairs is actually the best thing to do in light of all this, as He's preventing a greater flux of destruction in the scheme of things.
Earth can be purged if it has to, but heaven is something He is not going to tolerate. And why should He? It's the seat of existence, the paradise,, our reward for not falling into the grip of destruction that is Earth.
Pun intended.

And besides, it's also a place for those He promised eternal grace. He would be breaking His promise to those in it by allowing an atrocity to ruin it.
God does not mess with free will. The only benevolence that needs to be spoken on that is that He can.

The Old Testament speaks of a Messiah coming. Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah, and yet the Jews are still waiting for it.
There is evidence that points towards Jesus, no doubt, but there is also just as much pointing towards him not being so all the same.
The Bible speaks on grace and exemplifies it, though God was not willing to let certain things go on. Like Sodom, for example.

Which brings me to something that was stated earlier: homosexuality. Now, I don't have a problem with it, simply because in this day and age man can handle such a thing. But back in those ancient, barbaric times, places like Sodom were practically giant brothels riddled with rape and molestation.
Which der Astronom, should get you thinking on exaction, as you stated something about rape and murder.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The concept is about as fair as it gets really, especially for those who flaunt vanity (as it is fair and brings to light their cruelty they have caused)

Nonetheless, depending on how you look at it, God has done one of two things: One, He has given you what you asked for (which is ironic), or two, He has given you something better (Messiah).

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

I say it is because He is benevolent that He does so.

But you also talk about all of the times that God has intervened. If those are to be believed, God's very inconsistent. I'd be totally cool with him not interfering with me, in life or the afterlife, but I do have a problem with him mucking about with earth and my eternal soul.

Human vanity is not going to stop unless it is willed by man.

We agree here. Though I don't think it's really feasible to get rid of self-importance. It's a key survival trait.

Giving everyone access to Heaven will eventually only result in uprising

Perhaps rebellion is necessary because God is a tyrant. Perhaps this afterlife thing is just to avoid getting his comeuppance.

simply because in this day and age man can handle such a thing.

Given that in many places in the world it's socially unacceptable or even illegal to be a homosexual, I don't see how. But what exactly do you mean by 'handle'? You don't seem to mean that buttsex is a gateway drug to bad behavior, do you?

But back in those ancient, barbaric times, places like Sodom were practically giant brothels riddled with rape and molestation.

Wait, nope, that seems to be exactly what you're implying. And actually, Sodom was judged for none of those things. The only detail they get into with what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did was that they were generally immoral and liked screwing a lot (including other men and animals).

The only explicit thing they're charged with is the gang that wants to screw the angels and that they have a bunch of rich, well-off people who are lazy and don't give to the poor. Sure, not the nicest place to live, but not the den of rapists, murderers, and thieves that popular opinion makes it out to be. Besides the angel-lovers, it doesn't sound far off from a lot of countries today. So why doesn't he intervene? And certainly not warranting the entire destruction of a city, down to babies, children, and the poor who couldn't really avoid doing ill.

Also, why do you think the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is literal instead of metaphorical? It could be a metaphor about how the wicked will destroy themselves, or something.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The concept is about as fair as it gets really

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. For talking a lot about cycles, you seem to ignore the cycle of revenge. Harm for harm is an awful way to go about things as it begets itself.

Nonetheless, depending on how you look at it, God has done one of two things: One, He has given you what you asked for (which is ironic), or two, He has given you something better (Messiah).

Or he has been inconsistent and hypocritical. At times it appears the Christian God is hands-off (which is good) and at other times meddling and punishing people with His own hand based off of His own morality. This only gets worse with things not in the Bible, like people claiming natural disasters are His work (or that he supports/endorses them).

This does nothing to mention the fate of the soul. Why must we have a Hell? Why can't wicked and corrupt souls be destroyed to save them an eternity of suffering? It's not that bad that God wants to reward people he likes for whatever reason, it's that he wants to punish everyone else.

 

[Jquestionmark]

I just figured I'd come and see if anyone has proven my past rationale wrong, which this will be my third time statingsince re-posting them.
It would seem not..

Have you read what we wrote? Cause I don't know if you're aware of this, but showing you to be using a logical fallacy is showing you to be wrong. You know, like equivocation.

Once again, you throw up ridiculous technicality.

If it's technically wrong, it's still wrong. I only referenced something you said. I added nothing too it, I only took a direct quote.

Of course vanity doesn't cause earthquakes.

You should make up your mind, then.

Vanity causes all forms of destruction man on man.

This is also wrong. Unless you think vanity causes accidents, too.

Dude, you need to stop with that.

What, thinking you mean what you say? If you like, I can address every post you write as if you don't actually mean anything. Or, since we are in a debate, I can hold you to the claims you make. You need to stop claiming things if you don't mean to. Carefully read and consider what you are saying when you type things. If you don't really mean it, don't type it. It would save a lot of time.

I know you are not well informed on the concept, but you can't be that big of an idiot.

I love your ad hominem. I'm a big boy, though, so I'm not insulted.

Anyways, my statement at the top pretty much summed up where I stand.

Yes, you are rather confused about what the logical fallacies in your posts mean. It sums up your stance nicely.

Supposing that vanity is the root cause of all immoral acts, how exactly do we fix that so God isn't mad/upset/whatever at us for it?

Escapism to the world of tomorrow (the afterlife) seems to be the standard answer. If you ignore reality and hope for a good afterlife, you don't commit vain acts in the current world (all you do is sit around and worship god for fear of hell).

How does our misbehavior justify the actions of an all-powerful-nearly-omniscient-super-being when it punishes or doesn't save innocent people from harm?

It doesn't. In the same way that murder is always wrong, a god would have no excuse for his actions.

Is there any reason God is infallible other than the Bible says so?

You already know the answer to that.

And why do the sins of some people (like those waging wars, stealing, murdering, blaspheming, etc) corrupt and damn all of us? I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if I got judged with stealing because someone I was related to stole something. I had nothing to do with it besides blood relation.

Even the bible (morally confused as it is) says that's not okay (somewhere in Deuteronomy. I'll look it up if you like).

I agree God should erase us all if he really wants to help us. Mankind will never change and will always stay impure.

This is an incredibly bleak outlook on man. So you don't think we've improved since abolishing slavery and destroying many powerful diseases? Thinking that the best think to do for us would be killing us seems a little sociopathic. I think that in the terrible event that god should exist, the best thing he could do to help us would be leaving us alone.

(I never read the bible or anything btw)
I also have a muslim friend and he said God and the fallen angel (Lucifer) have some agreement. Lucifer was jealous of God's creation and that led him to be banned from heaven and he was sent to hell.

Lucifer wants to prove that humans arent worth God's praise and love. So lucifer will try to do anything to lure those souls and to prove humans are full of sin etc.

God agreed to let people prove otherwise.

Both parties cant interfere physically obviously. Ofcourse its just a theory, but it did made me think.

Amidst all the chaos, pain and evil, who can stay pure? Only those that can remain pure enough is on God's side and really worth His salvation.

Looking down on non-believers means those are impure and not worth God's love and salvation.

Believers that only believe and follow God and praising him just for the sake of avoiding Hell arent worth God's salvation.

Only God can judge obviously.

My perspective:
I dont follow any religion but I do believe in a higher being/entity and I have to call that entity God to give it a persona.

An interesting story, but I don't see it as being relevant to reality. No more than any other story or myth.

Open-mindedness is the only way to venture upon something you do not understand, especially when you already have a close-minded opinion of it.

You speak of being closed-minded, but when people present you with other ideas, you don't even seem willing to entertain them. Someone gave you a link to information on how science works, and you said you weren't interested in that. Is that not closed-minded?

You say that God is not benevolent because He has forsaken man to the chaotic occurrences of man and nature, only to be salvaged by omitting vanity.
I say it is because He is benevolent that He does so. Human vanity is not going to stop unless it is willed by man.

Does it need to stop? I feel like being vain is far from the worst thing out there. We have more to fear from wrathful people with access to weapons and selfless religious zealots that blow themselves up than from people who like themselves too much.

Giving everyone access to Heaven will eventually only result in uprising, just as Lucifer, and the cycle will happen all over again.

Lets look at this Lucifer idea for a minute. As a deitic creature (maybe not a god, but pretty close), he deserves some attention in here too (especially in regards to his benevolence). So, we have this god that punishes people, and sends them away from "heaven" (of which there's no explanation of what actually goes on there). The modern views of hell are impacted by some things in the bible unrelated to hell (eternal fire and all that), but it doesn't have a solid description either. So, there's this guy, Lucifer, who has already gotten kicked out by god. Lucifer is obviously very powerful (dominion over earth, I believe you said). Here's my question: why would he help god punish people that aren't allowed into heaven? Why wouldn't he throw them a giant eternal party? After all, they're on his side.

Leaving man to it's own affairs is actually the best thing to do in light of all this, as He's preventing a greater flux of destruction in the scheme of things.

How exactly does this prevent greater destruction? Is god not skilled enough to meddle only for the better?

Earth can be purged if it has to, but heaven is something He is not going to tolerate. And why should He? It's the seat of existence, the paradise,, our reward for not falling into the grip of destruction that is Earth.
Pun intended.

Why would he not tolerate it? Do you know how he feels about all this? Do we have any reason to think that heaven even exists? Maybe he's just lying because worship gives him power. Maybe he's promising things that don't exist to get a bigger cult so he can absorb our delicious worship.

Aren't you worried that this is a real possibility?

And besides, it's also a place for those He promised eternal grace. He would be breaking His promise to those in it by allowing an atrocity to ruin it.

The main book supporting his existence also talks about him lying to people and killing them for believing his lies. Why should anyone think he'd keep a promise after something like that?

God does not mess with free will.

So, using god-powers to harden the heart of the pharaoh didn't mess with his free will?

The only benevolence that needs to be spoken on that is that He can.

Not manipulating people even though you can doesn't make you benevolent. It just means that in that particular instance you are not malevolent. Either way, we know he messed with free will, so this point is incorrect.

The Old Testament speaks of a Messiah coming. Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah, and yet the Jews are still waiting for it.

This has nothing to do with benevolence.

There is evidence that points towards Jesus, no doubt, but there is also just as much pointing towards him not being so all the same.

This also has nothing to do with benevolence.

The Bible speaks on grace and exemplifies it, though God was not willing to let certain things go on. Like Sodom, for example.

So, sometimes God isn't benevolent? If I remember this story correctly, he had to be bargained down on the number of good people that had to be in the city to not destroy it. And what about Lot's wife? Turned to a pillar of salt for looking the wrong direction? That's grace?

Which brings me to something that was stated earlier: homosexuality. Now, I don't have a problem with it, simply because in this day and age man can handle such a thing.

What are you saying here? Are you saying it's sinful but we can deal with it now, so it's okay?

But back in those ancient, barbaric times, places like Sodom were practically giant brothels riddled with rape and molestation.

Which are issues other than homosexuality, and connecting them to homosexuality seems homophobic. Homosexuals are not pre-disposed towards rape and molestation.

Which der Astronom, should get you thinking on exaction, as you stated something about rape and murder.

Rape and murder have nothing to do with homosexuality, and murder of an entire city is not a benevolent response.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The concept is about as fair as it gets really, especially for those who flaunt vanity (as it is fair and brings to light their cruelty they have caused)

What about turning the other cheek? Isn't assuming that you deserve revenge vain, and not fair?

Nonetheless, depending on how you look at it, God has done one of two things: One, He has given you what you asked for (which is ironic), or two, He has given you something better (Messiah).

This is a false dilemma (a logical fallacy). Third option: there is no god.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

But you also talk about all of the times that God has intervened. If those are to be believed, God's very inconsistent. I'd be totally cool with him not interfering with me, in life or the afterlife, but I do have a problem with him mucking about with earth and my eternal soul.

Yeah, let''s just forget that you think you should partake ownership of something that is not yours, but His, and put it like this:

He intervened to correct man. It didn't work. So now He is like whatever,, let them have their way. He'll put the Messiah into play and make it a whole lot easier for any man to live in Heaven, and leave the rest to do whatever they want.
If Jesus is the Messiah, than of course nothing divine will grace Earth until Revelations. If not, then God has left you to do as you please all the same.
Your soul is not the only soul, and therefore is no more important than another. You don't like your soul being messed with, and yet you mess with others souls through vanity.

We agree here. Though I don't think it's really feasible to get rid of self-importance. It's a key survival trait.

Yeah, as if I'm implementing that you should not grab the ledge if slip on a skyscraper or something.

Perhaps rebellion is necessary because God is a tyrant. Perhaps this afterlife thing is just to avoid getting his comeuppance.

Yeah, maybe necessary for yourself. Wait until you curse everyone to war and poverty, just as what Lucifer caused. Vanity
This statement foolishly undermines the concept.

Given that in many places in the world it's socially unacceptable or even illegal to be a homosexual, I don't see how. But what exactly do you mean by 'handle'? You don't seem to mean that buttsex is a gateway drug to bad behavior, do you?

The Messiah granted man opportunity of Heaven simply by accepting His graceful act. By accepting it, you have let go of vanity in the scheme of things. Any real Christian tries to be like Jesus.
Anyways, what I meant on homosexuality is that in more civil times, it is more applicable in society than in a barbaric setting. I shouldn't have to explain why..

Wait, nope, that seems to be exactly what you're implying. And actually, Sodom was judged for none of those things. The only detail they get into with what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did was that they were generally immoral and liked screwing a lot (including other men and animals).

Yeah, so your implying that a barbaric society with these things did not do so..
Here's an idea. The biblical figure, Lot, goes to Sodom and refuses to giveSo he gives his sisters to them in hope that they all wouldn't die. his guests to it's inhabitants,, and is threatened with death.

Also, why do you think the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is literal instead of metaphorical? It could be a metaphor about how the wicked will destroy themselves, or something.

Because of the details of how it was destroyed.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. For talking a lot about cycles, you seem to ignore the cycle of revenge. Harm for harm is an awful way to go about things as it begets itself.

That's why it was necessary to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. The cycle was then broken, as they were completely wiped out. They would have grown into a corrupt nation and warred anyways, continuing revenge.
God doesn't have a construct of revenge. How could He? He's God. What are you going to do seriously, lol.
Quoting Ghandi isn't necessarily the best way to go with this.

NOTE: Jquestionmark- your extreme technicalities will go ignored. You take them too far as it is unnecessary and provides nothing to the debate.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Yeah, let''s just forget that you think you should partake ownership of something that is not yours, but His, and put it like this:

No. My soul is my own, He has no claim to it. My parents don't own me because they conceived me - my body and life are my own. Likewise, God doesn't have a hand in this because it's my soul.

Well, actually, it's not my soul because I don't even have one. I don't believe in souls.

You don't like your soul being messed with, and yet you mess with others souls through vanity.

Wait, so I mess with their souls by being vain at all? Then how is it anyone's fault if they end up vain? I mean, I'm the one 'corrupting' them with it, aren't I?

By accepting it, you have let go of vanity in the scheme of things. Any real Christian tries to be like Jesus.

Accepting Jesus is all? I don't see how that makes humans infallible and incapable of pride or other sins, regardless of how much they're trying to act like Jesus. Hell, even Jesus lost his temper.

Anyways, what I meant on homosexuality is that in more civil times, it is more applicable in society than in a barbaric setting.

Well, given that we had both sexes back then and homosexuals, I don't see how it's any more applicable. You seem to be applying that it was wrong for them to exist back then.

I shouldn't have to explain why..

It makes no sense, so you probably should.

Yeah, so your implying that a barbaric society with these things did not do so..

It's not said in the Bible, and you even agree that this part is meant to be literal, so we can't know because it's not mentioned at all, even though other sins are mentioned in detail.

he gives his sisters

Actually, he gave his virginal daughters to them. Lot is also an asshole. Have you read the Bible?

Because of the details of how it was destroyed.

They explicitly describe the sea monster within Revelations, but you think that's metaphor.

God doesn't have a construct of revenge. How could He? He's God. What are you going to do seriously, lol.

What, so might makes right? And you said that if vain souls get into Heaven, there'd be another rebellion. And if He's actually concerned about that, that means we have enough power to threaten Him. So man could get his revenge, which means that God is still part of the cycle.

Quoting Ghandi isn't necessarily the best way to go with this.

What the hell does that mean? It was a relevant quote.

provides nothing to the debate.

It provides that you're inconsistent and wrong, which I think is rather important to this debate.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Yeah, let''s just forget that you think you should partake ownership of something that is not yours, but His, and put it like this:

How do you know who owns what souls? Do you have any way of knowing that god possesses souls instead of the people actually using them? Or that souls exist?

He intervened to correct man. It didn't work. So now He is like whatever,, let them have their way. He'll put the Messiah into play and make it a whole lot easier for any man to live in Heaven, and leave the rest to do whatever they want.

Once again, you seem to know a lot about god's motives. How do you know this?

If Jesus is the Messiah, than of course nothing divine will grace Earth until Revelations. If not, then God has left you to do as you please all the same.

This is also a false dilemma, as there are far more possibilities than what you describe. For example, god could just be hanging out enjoying his free worship since his lies have become self-perpetuating. Why isn't that a possibility?

Your soul is not the only soul, and therefore is no more important than another. You don't like your soul being messed with, and yet you mess with others souls through vanity.

I can't say I've ever messed with a soul. Or seen one. Or seen any evidence for one. And if it is through vanity that souls are messed with, god is vain (pharaoh, hardened heart, remember?).

Yeah, as if I'm implementing that you should not grab the ledge if slip on a skyscraper or something.

I'm guessing you mean "implying" and not "implementing," but yeah, it kind of seems that way. So you agree that your definition of vanity can lead to good acts as well?

Yeah, maybe necessary for yourself. Wait until you curse everyone to war and poverty, just as what Lucifer caused. Vanity

Wait, that's not fair to Lucifer. If I recall correctly, god cursed man to war and poverty by kicking him out of eden. Lucifer is just a cool dude throwing a party for all of the people that don't want to put up with god.

This statement foolishly undermines the concept.

Since evidence points to god being vain, it seems like there's no reason for us to not overthrow him.

The Messiah granted man opportunity of Heaven simply by accepting His graceful act. By accepting it, you have let go of vanity in the scheme of things. Any real Christian tries to be like Jesus.

Or, there's no heaven, and the Jesus thing was a ploy to get more people in on the worship. After all, you catch more flies with honey than shit. A wonderful loving god that forgives you for all your mistakes and gave his own son to save you sounds like a good god to worship. Never mind that other stuff he did, cause he's nice now. Or, he's the same, a liar, a great con-man, there's no heaven, Jesus was part of the con, and bam! now he's a worldwide sensation. Gotta give him some credit for being sly, I guess.

Anyways, what I meant on homosexuality is that in more civil times, it is more applicable in society than in a barbaric setting. I shouldn't have to explain why..

So now it's okay to be homosexual? Why wasn't it okay in the past? You DO have to explain why, because right now it looks like you only think homosexuality is okay in certain situations. You sound kind of like a bigot here - saying that it's only okay to be homosexual in certain settings.

Yeah, so your implying that a barbaric society with these things did not do so..
Here's an idea. The biblical figure, Lot, goes to Sodom and refuses to giveSo he gives his sisters to them in hope that they all wouldn't die. his guests to it's inhabitants,, and is threatened with death.

Lot already lived in Sodom. Those were his daughters. And that seems downright monstrous, offering your children up to be raped and molested instead of some guys you don't even know. I'm not saying anyone deserves to be saved more than anyone else, but trying for a trade isn't really a great solution.

Because of the details of how it was destroyed.

Then why is the eden story not literal instead of metaphorical? It gets really specific with some of the details as well.

That's why it was necessary to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. The cycle was then broken, as they were completely wiped out. They would have grown into a corrupt nation and warred anyways, continuing revenge.

How do you know they would have grown into a corrupt nation? Maybe they would have sorted their shit out over time. Do you have a crystal ball showing you the alternate future of this story (since it's a story and not necessarily about a real event)?

God doesn't have a construct of revenge. How could He? He's God. What are you going to do seriously, lol.

If god doesn't understand revenge, how could he make a universe where revenge exists? Has his creation spiraled out of his control, new things beyond his ken coming to be without his intervention?

Also, I believe god specifically says in the tower of babel story that man can do anything if he puts his mind to it, so we could make a new tower of babel to heaven, some god-killing lasers, and take out the trash. The only thing separating us from god is immortality (according to genesis), so we could work that one out too and take over his realm. That's what we could do.

Quoting Ghandi isn't necessarily the best way to go with this.

You aren't showing any reason that "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is inaccurate. Unless you have a reason it's a poor claim, it seems like a pretty good way to go with this.

NOTE: Jquestionmark- your extreme technicalities will go ignored. You take them too far as it is unnecessary and provides nothing to the debate.

NOTE: Sum1sgruj - Good try, but you're the one claiming the things that I'm responding to. My responses contribute plenty to the debate, as they show errors in your reasoning and flaws in your claims. I'm not taking anything too far - I'm just showing the issues with the things you claim. You can ignore me pointing out the logical fallacies you are using and the counter arguments I'm providing all you want, but they are still right (and only more obviously so through your decision to ignore them instead of addressing them).

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Before I start, I want to point out that this is the most straw manned, ridiculously argumentative post I've ever seen in my life.

Which I am going to bring to light:

How do you know who owns what souls? Do you have any way of knowing that god possesses souls instead of the people actually using them? Or that souls exist?

We are talking about God, as in the Judeo-Christian god, right?

Once again, you seem to know a lot about god's motives. How do you know this?

I don't know. Bibles and things of the sort that bear 100's of clues.

I can't say I've ever messed with a soul. Or seen one. Or seen any evidence for one. And if it is through vanity that souls are messed with, god is vain (pharaoh, hardened heart, remember?).

Ever intentionally piss someone off? Voila.

That was the only time He ever messed with free will, and it was because He wanted to show Egypt just how great their imaginary gods are. And also to gain the confidence of the Jews and have the truth realized.

I'm guessing you mean "implying" and not "implementing," but yeah, it kind of seems that way. So you agree that your definition of vanity can lead to good acts as well?

The only good vanity can do is for yourself. I agree that 95% of what you do with vanity is ultimately immoral. The bible speaks on suicide, and letting yourself die in vain is suicide.
You are picking at a truth that cannot be denied. Your just trying to insult my intelligence, but it's really just making you look foolish.

Wait, that's not fair to Lucifer. If I recall correctly, god cursed man to war and poverty by kicking him out of eden. Lucifer is just a cool dude throwing a party for all of the people that don't want to put up with god.

Oh, the garden that would have ultimately been destroyed by man anyways because of their new found knowledge?
Your statement holds no value.

Since evidence points to god being vain, it seems like there's no reason for us to not overthrow him.

Overthrow Him.. right..
God is not vain. He's God. I guess you are talking about his actions..
They were not vain. He saved a lot of trouble doing what He did in the scheme of things.
And if you want to be technical, God is the crux of existence. Vain really isn't in His construct.

Or, there's no heaven, and the Jesus thing was a ploy to get more people in on the worship. After all, you catch more flies with honey than shit. A wonderful loving god that forgives you for all your mistakes and gave his own son to save you sounds like a good god to worship. Never mind that other stuff he did, cause he's nice now. Or, he's the same, a liar, a great con-man, there's no heaven, Jesus was part of the con, and bam! now he's a worldwide sensation. Gotta give him some credit for being sly, I guess.

Once again, we are talking about the Judeo-Christian god, right?

So now it's okay to be homosexual? Why wasn't it okay in the past? You DO have to explain why, because right now it looks like you only think homosexuality is okay in certain situations. You sound kind of like a bigot here - saying that it's only okay to be homosexual in certain settings.

I said if you are barbaric and are homosexual than you are probably a dangerous person. Sodom exemplifies this completely.
If you are civil, than it's quite the contrary.

Lot already lived in Sodom. Those were his daughters. And that seems downright monstrous, offering your children up to be raped and molested instead of some guys you don't even know. I'm not saying anyone deserves to be saved more than anyone else, but trying for a trade isn't really a great solution.

It was either that or he dies, they get raped and become slaves forever.
Way to be rational. I hope you are never put in that predicament. Oh wait, you won't because God had that place wiped off the planet.

Then why is the eden story not literal instead of metaphorical? It gets really specific with some of the details as well.

So you are saying that because the Serpent entered Eden, the entirety of the story is metaphorical?

How do you know they would have grown into a corrupt nation? Maybe they would have sorted their shit out over time. Do you have a crystal ball showing you the alternate future of this story (since it's a story and not necessarily about a real event)?

Well, let's see.. they were rich and did what they pleased (understatement). And like any other place, they were probably growing to.

Oh yeah, and God probably saw that becoming a reality. I would think that God would be capable of knowing if man can have a general idea.

If god doesn't understand revenge, how could he make a universe where revenge exists? Has his creation spiraled out of his control, new things beyond his ken coming to be without his intervention?

I didn't say He didn't understand revenge. I was implying that He is God, what 'revenge' can He distribute?

Also, I believe god specifically says in the tower of babel story that man can do anything if he puts his mind to it, so we could make a new tower of babel to heaven, some god-killing lasers, and take out the trash. The only thing separating us from god is immortality (according to genesis), so we could work that one out too and take over his realm. That's what we could do.

Nimrod had the tower made so he could rage war with Heaven.
Do you know why people call a dumb person a nimrod?

You aren't showing any reason that "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is inaccurate. Unless you have a reason it's a poor claim, it seems like a pretty good way to go with this.

What? I implied quite well the irrelevancy of that quote in lieu of the immediate subject that was at hand. Besides, Ghandi was speaking for man, not the creator of existence, who as I said before has no revenge to serve. Everything He does is balance and purity of everything He created.

NOTE: Sum1sgruj - Good try, but you're the one claiming the things that I'm responding to. My responses contribute plenty to the debate, as they show errors in your reasoning and flaws in your claims. I'm not taking anything too far - I'm just showing the issues with the things you claim. You can ignore me pointing out the logical fallacies you are using and the counter arguments I'm providing all you want, but they are still right (and only more obviously so through your decision to ignore them instead of addressing them).

It provides that you're inconsistent and wrong, which I think is rather important to this debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sum1sgruj
See, this is why debating with you two is so frustrating. I say that you cannot believe in Christ and flaunt vanity, and..
you know what, it's not even worth wasting space on this post

It sure is tough when people want you explain or justify your claims, huh? Wouldn't want to waste space on actually responding to the refutations against you... You still haven't actually responded to the refutation, by the way.

This is a test of patience for me, let me assure you. I figured I'd post this just to show where my frustration comes in with this debate.

I said that you cannot believe in Christ and flaunt vanity. You bring a literal construct of how it could be so. I was so obviously not speaking in the extreme literal sense you are throwing up.
So no, I wouldn't want to waste space talking about something so incredibly asinine.

Right.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

I said if you are barbaric and are homosexual than you are probably a dangerous person. Sodom exemplifies this completely.
If you are civil, than it's quite the contrary.

Normally I'd reply to your entire post, but this bigoted comment stood out to me. Do you mean to imply that a barbaric person who is straight is either less or not dangerous?

Someone's sexuality has nothing to do with how dangerous they are, and you are a bigot for thinking otherwise. Having a different sexuality is not immoral, and neither is acting upon those feelings.

Please tell me it was simply a misunderstanding or a poor choice of words and that you didn't really mean it.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Normally I'd reply to your entire post, but this bigoted comment stood out to me. Do you mean to imply that a barbaric person who is straight is either less or not dangerous?

Someone's sexuality has nothing to do with how dangerous they are, and you are a bigot for thinking otherwise. Having a different sexuality is not immoral, and neither is acting upon those feelings.

Please tell me it was simply a misunderstanding or a poor choice of words and that you didn't really mean it.

This is your way of trying to gain appeal from other people.
I see.
A barbaric homosexual is more so to not only kill his target, but rape him as well. A barbaric homosexual is likely to not only torture his target, but rape him as well. A barbaric homosexual is likely to not only likely turn a city into chaos, but rape everyone as well.
Is it sinking in?
The only bigot is you for calling God malevolent, which goes directly against the Bible and rationality as well.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

This is your way of trying to gain appeal from other people.
I see.
A barbaric homosexual is more so to not only kill his target, but rape him as well. A barbaric homosexual is likely to not only torture his target, but rape him as well. A barbaric homosexual is likely to not only likely turn a city into chaos, but rape everyone as well.
Is it sinking in?
The only bigot is you for calling God malevolent, which goes directly against the Bible and rationality as well.

Haha, oh wow.

unadulteratedawesome

That's a spam post in a post count section. Please put some more effort into it. Thanks.