Belief in God hinges on the reality and morality of hell.

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Why do you keep saying "my God"

I don't have any specific "diety" that i would call God....IMO God is everything and everyone. Not some psycho in the clouds waiting to spike a lightining bolt at me if i sin.

God isn't a he or a him...God IMO is the all...In everyone and everything. God doesn't punish sinners, you make your own Karma, be it positive or negitive. Life corrects itself accordingly...

So please Stop with the "My God" garbage

Then if God is us, stop saying that we cannot understand God.
How in hell do you know what it understands in the first lace.
The God you promote is just as imaginary as any other without proof.
It is one you made up.

Regards
DL

I didn't say we can't understand God...

Im not promoting any God, that was my opinion of what i believe God is...

Where are you geting this stuff... are you reading the posts or just spouting off?

To define God as other than a set of rules, is idol worship.

Regardless of your religion, Christian, Muslim or any other religion, have you ever wondered why people began personifying God?

Why did we start giving Him a name when the Bible begins by telling us that He is the word. Word meaning rules.

The reason to me seems clear.
Our first God was a man.
Who but man can give voice to the will/rules of God?

There is only man.

The word God should then never be personified. When we do, it becomes idol worship.
God should be considered a title only. Somewhat like king or law.
Regardless of your religion or lack of it, to tie yourself to any Word is also idol worship.
We all label ourselves according to the set of rules we follow be they Christian, Muslim, Democrat or Green.

Our political Gods = rules.
Our religious Gods = rules.
Our natural Gods = rules.
Seek God yes. When you find Him, raise the bar of excellence for both Him and man.

Whoever you are, you live by one or two or three of those sets of rules mentioned. More than likely, a combination of all of them.
In this, none of us have any choice.

My question is aimed primarily at literalist and fundamentals who believe that their WORD is the WORD of a personified God. In other words, to my mind, idol worshipers.

Do you agree and see that to lock yourself to any WORD, including a personified religious God, is idol worship?

Am I wrong in saying that our first God was a man and that our last God should be a man as well?

Regards
DL

P. S. For a bit of Biblical history and insight.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

My father tells me that if I get to close to the road I will die. He further tells me that if I go onto the highway, I will be struck by a car or a semi tractor trailer and willl be killed. Do not go to the road. Do as I say or suffer the consequences.

I ignore what he tells me, go out to the highway...play in the road...and I am killed. Is that the fault of my father? Does that make him evil?

That depends. Is your dad also the all-powerful creator God?

In that case it would make him apathetic at best.


Now take it a step further. Not only this, but he himself institues, or allows to be instituted, a system where anyone that disobeys him can suffer a horrible fate forever, and he will not intervene to help them at all, ever.

Now that's evil, just plain sick and twisted Hitler stuff.

Re Greatest I am

I can follow you to the extent, that religionists relating to the 'nameless' usually are quite decent and pleasant types, with whom it's easy to get along.

They seek experienced 'reality', which naturally can't be enforced very well, whereas the doctrinalists for various reasons and with various methods often are rather militantly invasive, as doctrines are exoterically 'absolutes', which you can cram down the throat of people.

Re Bsbray11

Well said, but circle-argumention never allows anything to disturb its Ouroboros complacency. No matter how rational, sensible, logical or RELEVANT the counterpoint is.

The circle-argumentator will just move to another point of his/her circle and start from there next time. And if the circle is extensive, with an elaborate system of assumptions, feed-back references, rhetoric, bad syntax and bad semantics, it's a gordic knot it will take eternities to unravel. Especially as circle-argumentators usually ignore dialogues , and stay with one-way communication.

reply to post by Greatest I am


Let me get this straight...

God's existence depends on your standard for what is moral or not?

Re NOTurTypical

I know, you always eagerly await my comments, and I will not disappoint you this time either.

You wrote:

["God's existence depends on your standard for what is moral or not?"]

Which, from a non-doctrinal, non-theist perspective could be rephrased to:

"God's alleged existence depends on what subjective faiths, fantasies, fabrications or fabulations believers cook up in their minds to 'prove' him/her/it".

reply to post by bogomil


No, unless I am mistaken, the OP is trying to argue that God's existence is determined upon his (OPs) standard for morality.

Re NOTurTypical

You wrote:

["No, unless I am mistaken, the OP is trying to argue that God's existence is determined upon his (OPs) standard for morality."]

Sure. And both you and I are presenting our own perspectives on that; and in my case also a perspective on some of the comments on the thread, as when I responded to your post.

Personally I find it reasonable to relate to both the intrinsic meaning of a thread and the 'frame' around this meaning (e.g. position of perspective, validity of sources or 'evidence', general semantics), but I find such debate-tactical maneuvers as posting double-bind questions dysfunctional (if you wish, you can have the last words on this specific problem, if you like. This is a derailing blind alley for me, both as a subject and as when it's manifested).

reply to post by bogomil


So basically you're posting off-topic conjectures.

Gotcha.

Anyways, OP, is what I stated above really what you're trying to say?

Originally posted by bogomil
Re Greatest I am

I can follow you to the extent, that religionists relating to the 'nameless' usually are quite decent and pleasant types, with whom it's easy to get along.

They seek experienced 'reality', which naturally can't be enforced very well, whereas the doctrinalists for various reasons and with various methods often are rather militantly invasive, as doctrines are exoterically 'absolutes', which you can cram down the throat of people.

Nice that you get it. In this way God can evolve along with us. God as rules that is.

I agree with your last and unfortunately, I have had to use this quote way to often with theists who try to do as you describe.

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God,
holds other people in contempt.
Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,
there is in that man no spirit of compromise.
He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;
he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance.
Believing himself to be the slave of God,
he imitates his master,
and of all tyrants,
the worst is a slave in power."
--Robert Ingersoll

Regards
DL

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Let me get this straight...

God's existence depends on your standard for what is moral or not?

Not quite what I said.

Does hell as described in the O P exist for you?

If not, how does your God give reward and punishment.

If you want to start from there we can continue and I will try to show that if hell does exist then God cannot be a good God and if not a good God, why in hell would anyone want to follow him?

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


Not so fast, you started the thread, not I. You answer me, not vice versa.

Am I reading your OP wrong?

Are you arguing God cannot exist because you determine Hell to be immoral???

If I'm wrong in what you're trying to say, please clarify.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Let me get this straight...

God's existence depends on your standard for what is moral or not?

Well he has to either be loving or else vengeful enough to send you to hell forever and never bail you out, apparently, despite the fact that I'm sure anyone in hell would not want to be there. So is God sitting in Heaven ignoring all the cries for him in Hell, is he loving, or does this version of "God" even exist outside of mythology?

Just to clarify I wouldn't even torture Hitler eternally. That's sicker that what Hitler himself did, and it would be on a much, much greater scale if we're talking all the people that must be in Hell.

If your God is more evil than Hitler even by human standards of "evil," then I sure don't want anything to do with him anyway. That "God" can kiss my ass; he's running one hell of a concentration camp here, and he was the one that made up all the rules in the first place! Some love!

reply to post by bsbray11


You see, I feel the opposite. I think it would be immoral to have people around Him for eternity who want nothing to do with Him whatsoever. With that said, my question is still unanswered:

Does God's existence depend on human definitions or standards of "Moral"?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Not so fast, you started the thread, not I. You answer me, not vice versa.

Am I reading your OP wrong?

Are you arguing God cannot exist because you determine Hell to be immoral???

If I'm wrong in what you're trying to say, please clarify.

I am saying that hell as described in the O P would be immoral.

God, if he exists would have to be a moral being.

It follows that if hell exists, then a moral God did not create it so the existence of a God who created all things is not possible unless he is immoral and if so, then he is not much of a God.

Do I base this on my moral sense? Absolutely.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


So God is limited by human definitions of morality?

That's pretty arrogant.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

So God is limited by human definitions of morality?

That's pretty arrogant.

What do you mean? That is scripture.

A & E became as God's, knowing good and evil. God's own words.
If man = God then God = man.
Math cannot lie.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


Man doesn't = God. God is God, man is man. I'd argue that without a moral authority you have no rational basis for even arguing something moral or immoral.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Man doesn't = God. God is God, man is man. I'd argue that without a moral authority you have no rational basis for even arguing something moral or immoral.

If God has more moral authority than I then let him prove it by refuting my claim.
After all, he said that man = God.
He nor you can have it both ways.
You can stay on your knees with your head up his ass. I stand and have move on thank you very much.
Can you hear me in there?
Are you less intelligent than A & E?

Regards
DL