Ah, so we can kill people for not doing what we want, as long as we warn them first?
Then if they don’t do what we say, their death was self-inflicted.
Let me try an analogy: suppose you got out in a snowstorm, God is someone who loves you and got after you to light a fire so you can be warm, what happens if you still insist on going away?
It is though.
“Choosing to turn away from him” means not doing what he tells you to do. And as a result of this, he punishes you with eternal damnation.
It’s not like him saying “Don’t jump off that cliff or you’ll die!”.
It’s “Do exactly as I say, or I will personally ensure that you suffer for eternity.”
If you love someone and they go out in a snowstorm, then decide they were wrong and its too cold. Would you let them back into your house, or would you keep the door locked and let them freeze to death.
This is like the parable of the bridessmaids. God presents itself as vindictive and petty. We are told, endlessly that god has perfect love, but that is not what the bible shows us in the deeds of god or jesus, or the parables constructed to represent them.
I mean, that doesn’t really fix it if you have an actually omnipotent diety though, because that diety would be responsible for, well, everything, to include what the results of rejecting that diety would be.
Yes, that’s why hell isn’t already the current reality, despite humanity rejecting God, He still lends us life and good things out of love and doesn’t instantly smite those who use His gifts to act outside of His will.
If I told you I built a torture chamber where I’d punish you forever, I’d get the cops called on me. When you tell others the same its actually called love? You sound so insane right now.
I’m not going to defend the person above from having to confront the Problem of Evil (of which confrontation they seem to be in desperate need), but to play YHWH’s advocate for a moment:
They are suggesting that they subscribe to a more traditional view of “hell” than is depicted in, say, Dante’s Inferno. They claim that Hell is merely the absence of god’s love, and that that existence without god is torment enough. They are not suggesting that God has set up a lake of fire for Samael and the other fallen angels to prod at you with pitchforks. Their idea of hell is like an endless void of nothing, alone with your thoughts, cold and alone. Simply “without”.
Now, why an omnipotent being would choose to create a universe where there is such a dichotomy in treatment is another matter. The existence of an Omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being is mutually exclusive with our experienced reality, unless our definition of “benevolent” does not accurately describe the being’s morals.
Well, all but B and D are redundant, an omnipotent being could simply choose to be perfect in every other way. If they are not they specifically avoid being.
Omniscience is not implied by omnipotence. Choosing to be omniscient would first require a perfect knowledge of in what ways they are not omniscient. A sniper in a tower may have the power to destroy any living thing within 300 yards, but if they don’t know what their target is, the power to act doesn’t grant them the knowledge necessary to do so effectively. This, writ-large, is why most people list omniscience in addition to omnipotence among the powers of the abrahamic god (omnibenevolence has been added by much more recent Christians who don’t read the bible). Being all-knowing is required in order to effectively utilise omnipotence, but is not implied by it.
Also, A is listed as the base assumption, and is thus not redundant. It is what you fall back on if B-D are held true, by reductio ad absurdum. Since the other three cannot be true with our definitions of them, and they must be true in order to fit the definition of God according to these people, A would be true by reduction.
Even if he wasn’t made up, the god character from the Christian Bible is the most evil, fucked up, bastards in all of fiction. As if murdering the entire planet (minus a hand full of people) wasn’t enough, he then demanded the rape of countless women due to the actions of their fathers and/or husbands. So don’t go around talking about your imaginary friend being this shining moral beacon. Your moral system and foundation of logic is built upon circular reasoning created by a bunch of nomadic biggots jealous of everyone around them.
I pray to Russell’s Teapot you actually read this response, think long and hard about it, and don’t just get caught up with “erm akshully they were Nephilim”
“I saved you from being sent to hell.”
“Wait, who was going to send me to hell?”
“I was”
“…”
“Praise and worship pls, I suffered a lot for this.”
God is also called father, for he is the Godfather of Godfathers, and your protection money is due.
The OG conservative undiagnosed-something parent.
You know, when you phrase it like that Jesus sounds a lot like Donald Trump…
Depending on the interpretation the “I was” should be “yourself”.
As God is the source of all life and good, choosing to turn away from Him means hell is self-inflicted.
Ah, so we can kill people for not doing what we want, as long as we warn them first?
Then if they don’t do what we say, their death was self-inflicted.
Seems reasonable.
No? That’s not what it means.
Let me try an analogy: suppose you got out in a snowstorm, God is someone who loves you and got after you to light a fire so you can be warm, what happens if you still insist on going away?
It is though.
“Choosing to turn away from him” means not doing what he tells you to do. And as a result of this, he punishes you with eternal damnation.
It’s not like him saying “Don’t jump off that cliff or you’ll die!”.
It’s “Do exactly as I say, or I will personally ensure that you suffer for eternity.”
If you love someone and they go out in a snowstorm, then decide they were wrong and its too cold. Would you let them back into your house, or would you keep the door locked and let them freeze to death.
This is like the parable of the bridessmaids. God presents itself as vindictive and petty. We are told, endlessly that god has perfect love, but that is not what the bible shows us in the deeds of god or jesus, or the parables constructed to represent them.
But wouldn’t making us in such a way that their absence amounts to eternal torment also be a deliberate choice by an all powerful being?
Isaiah 45:7 : I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things,"
God made the evil.
I mean, that doesn’t really fix it if you have an actually omnipotent diety though, because that diety would be responsible for, well, everything, to include what the results of rejecting that diety would be.
Yes, that’s why hell isn’t already the current reality, despite humanity rejecting God, He still lends us life and good things out of love and doesn’t instantly smite those who use His gifts to act outside of His will.
If I told you I built a torture chamber where I’d punish you forever, I’d get the cops called on me. When you tell others the same its actually called love? You sound so insane right now.
I’m not going to defend the person above from having to confront the Problem of Evil (of which confrontation they seem to be in desperate need), but to play YHWH’s advocate for a moment:
They are suggesting that they subscribe to a more traditional view of “hell” than is depicted in, say, Dante’s Inferno. They claim that Hell is merely the absence of god’s love, and that that existence without god is torment enough. They are not suggesting that God has set up a lake of fire for Samael and the other fallen angels to prod at you with pitchforks. Their idea of hell is like an endless void of nothing, alone with your thoughts, cold and alone. Simply “without”.
Now, why an omnipotent being would choose to create a universe where there is such a dichotomy in treatment is another matter. The existence of an Omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being is mutually exclusive with our experienced reality, unless our definition of “benevolent” does not accurately describe the being’s morals.
I.e., Either God:
(A) does not exist; (B) is not all-powerful; © is not all-seeing/knowing (D) is not all-good.
Well, all but B and D are redundant, an omnipotent being could simply choose to be perfect in every other way. If they are not they specifically avoid being.
Omniscience is not implied by omnipotence. Choosing to be omniscient would first require a perfect knowledge of in what ways they are not omniscient. A sniper in a tower may have the power to destroy any living thing within 300 yards, but if they don’t know what their target is, the power to act doesn’t grant them the knowledge necessary to do so effectively. This, writ-large, is why most people list omniscience in addition to omnipotence among the powers of the abrahamic god (omnibenevolence has been added by much more recent Christians who don’t read the bible). Being all-knowing is required in order to effectively utilise omnipotence, but is not implied by it.
Also, A is listed as the base assumption, and is thus not redundant. It is what you fall back on if B-D are held true, by reductio ad absurdum. Since the other three cannot be true with our definitions of them, and they must be true in order to fit the definition of God according to these people, A would be true by reduction.
Even if he wasn’t made up, the god character from the Christian Bible is the most evil, fucked up, bastards in all of fiction. As if murdering the entire planet (minus a hand full of people) wasn’t enough, he then demanded the rape of countless women due to the actions of their fathers and/or husbands. So don’t go around talking about your imaginary friend being this shining moral beacon. Your moral system and foundation of logic is built upon circular reasoning created by a bunch of nomadic biggots jealous of everyone around them.
I pray to Russell’s Teapot you actually read this response, think long and hard about it, and don’t just get caught up with “erm akshully they were Nephilim”
If this is what god said, then it’s like Jeff Bezos running ads saying he’s a good guy.
Does original sin exist?
Sure. It’s called Model I Theory-in-use.
It’s hard to say. I’ve been trying, but I keep finding proof online that somebody else has done so and so before me.
No