Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Cyberman]

The fate of Hitler would be no different from the fate of Abraham, Mohammad, or Mother Teresa.

Is this necessarily true, if God didn't punish Hitler, it would mean the fate of Hitler would be the same as Abraham?

First, Abraham would have a much higher honor and dignity, for the way he lived. Hitler would have much more disgrace and dishonor for the way he lived.

Why?

Abraham proved he was willing to slaughter his own son, merely by being told to.

Hitler used his regime to 'cleanse' the world of the descendants of the so-called "Christ-killers", i.e. God's only-begotten son.

If you were this God and apportioning honour, dignity and disgrace, where would your judgements lie?

[pocaracas]

The fate of Hitler would be no different from the fate of Abraham, Mohammad, or Mother Teresa.

Is this necessarily true, if God didn't punish Hitler, it would mean the fate of Hitler would be the same as Abraham?

How dare you people presume to know what is god's only to know?!
You have no idea if it's one way or the other, but are quick enough to assume one of them and then extrapolate. Amazing!

[spockrates]

The fate of Hitler would be no different from the fate of Abraham, Mohammad, or Mother Teresa.

Is this necessarily true, if God didn't punish Hitler, it would mean the fate of Hitler would be the same as Abraham?

First, Abraham would have a much higher honor and dignity, for the way he lived. Hitler would have much more disgrace and dishonor for the way he lived.

God having compassion for Hitler, doesn't mean he honors and respects Hitler the way he respects and honors Abraham.

Even if their fates become the same, the life they lived is different, and one will always feel pride and dignity for how one lived, while the other will feel disgrace and shame for how he lived.

Another thing is - perhaps - just perhaps - this is not our one and only chance.

Perhaps everyone deserves more then one chance to get it right. But even in this case, having lived a bad life, will always be upon you, and would never escape you.

Therefore even if both end result is peace and happiness, one would be of much higher dignity and honor then the other.

Omni-benevolent God would feel sorry for a person disgracing himself, much like we felt sorry for Anican Skywalker choosing the evil path, after being good.

Even when Annican Sky Walker turned back and became good at the end, it doesn't erase all the evil he has done, now does it?

Our history is forever connected with us.

Well said, mystic!



Yes, I agree there that many deserve a second chance--even after death. One reason why the Catholic concept of Purgatory seems logical to me.

---

HEADLINE: Several forum members reported missing after going down unexplored rabbit trails in the "Better reasons to quit Christianity" thread. More at 10.

Good to see people having fun, instead of just debating and insulting. Nothing necessarily wrong with debate and insults, but humor has its place, too. (Socrates would agree, though Spock might give a solemn stare of disapproval.)

---

Is this necessarily true, if God didn't punish Hitler, it would mean the fate of Hitler would be the same as Abraham?

How dare you people presume to know what is god's only to know?!
You have no idea if it's one way or the other, but are quick enough to assume one of them and then extrapolate. Amazing!

Oh, I don't know. I thought I was suggesting, not asserting. There's a passage in Jeremiah, I think:

"Surely you are a God who hides himself."

I suppose old Jerry would agree with you and say we can know nothing about God that he does not reveal to us.

---

Is this necessarily true, if God didn't punish Hitler, it would mean the fate of Hitler would be the same as Abraham?

First, Abraham would have a much higher honor and dignity, for the way he lived. Hitler would have much more disgrace and dishonor for the way he lived.

Why?

Abraham proved he was willing to slaughter his own son, merely by being told to.

Hitler used his regime to 'cleanse' the world of the descendants of the so-called "Christ-killers", i.e. God's only-begotten son.

If you were this God and apportioning honour, dignity and disgrace, where would your judgements lie?

And yet, the actions of Hitler's régime created international sympathy for the Zionist cause to establish a Jewish nation in the region of Jerusalem. Something good came out of Hitler's atrocities, I suppose.

---

Or so simple that even a child can understand it?

If that were so then you'd have trouble explaining why so much time is spent drilling this into children's heads and yet someday they find themselves in a place like this forum, incapable of explaining even the simplest portion of their superstitions to an incredulous onlooker.

On one level, so simple a child can understand it: Power limits knowledge. Love limits power. Knowledge limits love.

On another level, so deep an experienced theologian can drown in it.

Isn't much of what is worth learning the same, Rythm?

---

Seriously, maybe this might help: Does any religion believe in a God that is totally omnibenevolent? No, of course not!

Sigh, yes, some do.

Yes, but ask someone who boldly (perhaps ignorantly?) claims God loves those in hell why she thinks this. Take the time to really listen to her and figure out what she means and why she believes it. What you will find is that the love she believes God has for the damned is inherent, rather than total. Ask her if forgiveness is an act of love, she will say, "Yes." Ask her if God has forgiven the consequences of the sins of the damned. She will say, "No." Ask her if God's love for them is so total that they are not judged for their sins, she might say, "No, but it's their choice to reject God's love. God didn't refuse to love them; they refused to accept his love. He didn't reject them; they rejected him."

Though she might not say God's love is total for some but inherent for others, the answers she gives to a sincere inquiry to understand her will make this obvious. (This is not true of all Christians, of course, but it is generally true of those who are not completely ignorant of why they believe.)

[spockrates]

Is this necessarily true, if God didn't punish Hitler, it would mean the fate of Hitler would be the same as Abraham?

First, Abraham would have a much higher honor and dignity, for the way he lived. Hitler would have much more disgrace and dishonor for the way he lived.

Why?

Abraham proved he was willing to slaughter his own son, merely by being told to.

Hitler used his regime to 'cleanse' the world of the descendants of the so-called "Christ-killers", i.e. God's only-begotten son.

If you were this God and apportioning honour, dignity and disgrace, where would your judgements lie?

If the Old and New Testament accounts are true, I think they teach us God did what he did not make Abraham go through with. He sacrificed his own Son.

[pocaracas]

If the Old and New Testament accounts are true,

That is one BIG "if", IMHO....

[spockrates]

If the Old and New Testament accounts are true,

That is one BIG "if", IMHO....

Indeed.

[The Grand Nudger]

You keep using that word............

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not sure, but the last way I would go about it would be to have it as an oral history passed down through generations (OT) or decades (NT) before anyone wrote it down, and not preserve any of the original documents so that even those are lost to time.

Why do you think it oral, rather than written?

I read books.

---

Why? Well, if I don't assume the possibility that God exists, then I've already made up my mind that God is non-existent, I think. As I've repeatedly said, I have not made up my mind, yet.

Congratulations, you are an unconvinced agnostic atheist!

---

Please tell me the difference between precognition and prediction, and then please explain how omniscience is the same as (or different from) each. This is necessary, I think.

Only if I want to change your mind. I plead with you not to. And I have nothing to add to what Rhythm has said on the matter.

---

Mister:

What I wonder is this: Does having a power necessitate that the power one has must be used to its fullest extent?

Only if the power is omniscience. Omnipotence is (roughly, due to debate on what it really means) the power to do anything. Omnibenevolence is the desire and capability to be totally benevolent. Omniscience is literally, knowledge of everything. Under your scheme, God knows everything God wants to know, which could be a very far cry from everything. Seems the leg you've decided to cut off the tripod of theodicy is omniscience. A valid choice, and fine for a Christian as long as you continue to pretend that limited omniscience isn't an oxymoron.

For he would not have the freedom to limit his omniscience so as to preserve our freedom. It seems God would have less freedom than the police officer who chose to not give me a speeding ticket!

If Christians were more careful about what attributes they assign to their imaginary friend, they wouldn't run into these contradictions. So what does 'inherent' mean in this context, in contrast with 'total'. 'Omni' literally means 'all', which is quite compatible with 'total' and nothing to do with inherent. 'Inherent' seems to be a code-word for 'less-than-omni'.

---

So, Mister:

Do you think it reasonable to say this? Yes, God does have the omniscience to allow him to completely obliterate our freewill, but he (in keeping in character with his omnibenevolence) chooses to exercise his omnipotence by limiting his omniscience so as to allow us to freely choose to love one another, as he freely chooses to love us.

If someone closes their eyes before firing a gun, they are still responsible for where the bullet winds up. All you have here is a precognitive God who sets up the initial conditions but chooses not to know all the ramifications and consequences. Unless the future is unknowable in principle, determinism is the case, whether God know how everything will turn out or not.

Unless you have something to add, I believe this satisfies the question for me of it being impossible for God to be omniscient, given that we have free will. That does still leave the question of whether God is actually omnibenevolent. If he is a monster, he is not worthy of being imitated, or loved, I think. If you want to move one, we can address the question: Is God really omnibenevolent? If not, we can continue to think through the question: "How can God be omniscient if we have freewill?"

The important thing is that you are satisfied. As far as omnibenevolence goes, how is that compatible with a God who can choose a better future, is capable of seeing it, but chooses not to know it? The very thing you've offered to salvage your God's omnibenevolence (that he only knows what he chooses to know), undermines it.

[Cyberman]

Why?

Abraham proved he was willing to slaughter his own son, merely by being told to.

Hitler used his regime to 'cleanse' the world of the descendants of the so-called "Christ-killers", i.e. God's only-begotten son.

If you were this God and apportioning honour, dignity and disgrace, where would your judgements lie?

If the Old and New Testament accounts are true, I think they teach us God did what he did not make Abraham go through with. He sacrificed his own Son.

That doesn't actually do anything to make the story any better. As you say, 'if' the stories are true - and let's for the moment accept that they are and are accounts of actual historical events - then God is an even bigger bastard than I made it out to be. Matt Dillahunty's analogy of God as Mafia Boss doesn't cover it. If I told you to kill a loved one and you said "sure, no problem", you would merely be a fool. I would be a psychotic criminal. The 'fact' that this god then said "no, I was only testing you" and stopped the killing from taking place is not and can not be a defense.

As for God sacrificing his own son, then Judas' betrayal and the Jews' denial were all part of what was meant to happen. Incidentally, the choice of the name "Judas" is no coincidence. The early church leaders realised that, whatever else happened, they would still have to live under Roman rule; the very last thing they needed was to piss them off. So they had to find a way to change the killers of 'the Christ' from the Roman authorities to the Jewish people. Hence the betrayal of 'Judas' and all that follows in the story.

[spockrates]

You keep using that word............

Indeed. For it's a favorite phrase of Lenard Nemoy and part of the enjoyment of the Spock persona.

---

Why do you think it oral, rather than written?

I read books.

Should one believe everything one reads? What do you do when one thing you read contradicts something else you read? For example, what do you do with this?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

I did not give birth to the idea of inherent omniscience, Mister.

---

Unless you have something to add, I believe this satisfies the question for me of it being impossible for God to be omniscient, given that we have free will. That does still leave the question of whether God is actually omnibenevolent. If he is a monster, he is not worthy of being imitated, or loved, I think. If you want to move one, we can address the question: Is God really omnibenevolent? If not, we can continue to think through the question: "How can God be omniscient if we have freewill?"

The important thing is that you are satisfied. As far as omnibenevolence goes, how is that compatible with a God who can choose a better future, is capable of seeing it, but chooses not to know it? The very thing you've offered to salvage your God's omnibenevolence (that he only knows what he chooses to know), undermines it.

Satisfaction does me no good if I'm satisfied with a lie and self deceived. If lies are all that satisfies me, then I hope that (as the Rolling Stones sang), "I can't get no satisfaction!" Like Spock said, "I always endeavor to be correct." When I quit Christianity, I want to reject the real religion, not some false misconception. That way, no Christian will accuse me of knocking down some straw man.

Having been a Christian yourself for a time, Mister, you are likely familiar with this one:

19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

(Galatians 5)

What you are saying to me is that it is irrational for Christians to believe their God empowers them to be more like him. For their God has NO self-control. He cannot control what he thinks about! So he must be a hypocrite, because he tells others to imitate him.

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

(Ephesians 5)

And he tells them to think about good things.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

(Philippians 4:8)

Yet his thoughts are not noble, right and admirable. For they destroy our freewill, making love impossible! Hence, he makes it impossible for anyone to obey his command:

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

(John 13:34-35)

This is the logical consequence of putting blind faith in the idea that omniscience means there is nothing God doesn't think about. Is this what you think every rational Christian truly believes?

Please let me ask you this, my friend: Does omniscience mean Christians must believe God thinks any and every thought--no matter how hateful and evil? Or do you think they believe the God in whom they trust abstains from thinking thoughts he believes are inherently evil?