A discussion around family table.

[Scented Nectar]

Without heaven or hell I would still thank and worship God for the opportunities he's given me, yes. I now don't fear God or expect reward, so neither really apply.

That's fair. I don't think biblegod would be worthy of such positive feelings no matter how skilled he had been at creating things, but I would fully support your right to freedom of thought, even if your thoughts were that you liked this guy.

My God doesn't expet me to deny my feelings, in fact my true feeling (when selfless) are required to follow God accurately.

If that were the case, there would be no expectations at all of positive god-thoughts. Nothing about praise, thanks, worship, even plain old belief. Such a god would not be so petty as to need the attention and glory. Are you sure you are a christian? A deist or a theist, yes, but a christian? Maybe an offshoot or merging of christianity with your own inner personal concept of god, but it's pretty clear that the christian god expects you to think about how wonderful he is.

I do agree with his my own morals. They don't preclude me from my religion and are in line with Christianity. I don't love and worship dictators, or nut jobs.

Biblegod is quite a dictator. No other religions allowed or you're killed, gays are killed, free women are killed, slavery is promoted and endorsed, etc. Even the part 2, new testament, says to keep these old laws in place. Many christians think part 2 changes things for a nicer kinder gentler set of laws, but it doesn't. Even if it did, it wouldn't change the fact that people of previous times had to suffer because of them.

I think what you see as a threat, is not focused on as much worldwide, from the religions, as you've probably experienced in you local area (wherever that may be).

Are you talking about the claimed threat of hell that religions use on their believers, or the way religions have threatened/affected my personal life?

-What is worship? obeying not the "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15: 9). It can be public or private, acknowledging that someone or something else is greater, and worthy of striving towards.

There should be absolutely no requirement for it at all, not even an expectation or hope of such a thing. Why would a god need any acknowledgement of his deeds from the creatures he made? This does not make sense. At all.

-What is acceptance into the heart? to fully trust and pledge allgiance to in your heart (the original Greek pisteuo is a much better word)

This should be a completely voluntary, spontaneous emotion for a person to feel about another, never ever demanded. That is fucking sick to demand things like that. Everyone hopes for others to like them, but to demand it is creepy or something. Ick. I'm picturing God wearing one of those 'something's wrong with that guy' hats, as found in this funny video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15S0g8pG6HU

-What is love? You're going to have to be more specific on this one if you want an answer

I dislike any serious use of the word 'love', as it has too many meanings and often comes attached to tons of baggage. That goes for the use of the word in both the ordinary and romantic senses, but unless God gets you horny, I'll assume we are talking about the ordinary use of the word. However, regardless of the different definitions, they all refer to some form of liking, or being fond of, the one who is loved.

-What is belief? Mental acceptance of or conviction in the truth or actuality of something (common connotation implies with proof)

There is no reason at all for a god to need us to believe in his existence. If there were some reason that this were important, he would have simply made us already believing instinctually from birth, without fail.

A God is not all loving in the sense you're using it. B. If God has a choice between torture and mercy.. it would probably depend on the individuals choices not God's whim

Nonsense, no one would choose torture over mercy. That's ridiculous. Are you saying that hell is real, but only has a few really severe masochists in it? Also, probably means you are not really sure, which tells me you are scared of hell, as you must be if your authority figure is going to decide it for you.

-Why would your god even need his emotions pandered to in such an immature way?
A. God doesn't need B. "pandering" would be a choice from reverence by the prostrate, not out of requirement.

Then there would be no requirement or even expectation of all the positive thought laws. God would simply be maybe a bit happy if people did this now and then, the same way we all are when someone else does or thinks something nice towards us.

The Bible isn't perfect, but it is inspired

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

---

you must be thinking of the Qu'ran being a perfect holy book. I will conceed that a majority of Christians feel it is a perfect reflection of God's truth. A literal and fundamentalist approach I believe would be in the minority of the religio of Christianity as a whole, but I have no numbers for that. I personally tend to think of it as man's vain attempt to figure out God, after all, God didn't request we make the thing.

Then you shouldn't give the claims in it any more credibility or consideration than the thousands of other philosophy/religion books written by humans. To call yourself a christian means that you specifically follow the bible, which is the sole result of all the writings made-for/collected about the Jesus Christ being a god myth.

-do you think highly of his morals? Yes, he would be a moral "north pole" as it were.

Yikes, maybe you should read the bible before you agree so quickly. Otherwise I will be scared to be around you. Your god would have me killed many times over by now, as well as being sentenced multiply to eternal torture, for many nonharmful 'crimes'.

-Do you worship him due to being truly infatuated and in love with him, or because you are ordered to? between those two choices I'd choose a although we probably have different meanings for the word love

The christian god doesn't let you keep that choice. You are ordered to love him. I have no problem with people choosing to love whoever they want, it's when it is ordered or expected that I have a problem with it.

-why is it given divine status among xtians? I don't know. I only give it slightly more status than a math professor gives his calculator.

Then you are taking it as the truth, or as close as one can get short of manufacturing/typo errors in the factories that make calculators and print bibles. Why do you think those humans who wrote it have any more knowledge of the true nature of your god than you do? How do they know anything for sure about it more than what you yourself feel inside you regarding the possibility and personality of a god?

-why do you believe the claims of magic inside? I don't believe in magic as you're using it now. Most, if not all, miracles have been/will be proven by scientific means to be naural aside from possibly resurrection. Theese natural signs were a more primitive man's signs that God was working in their lives. I still see God's hand in every drop of rain and bolt of lightning, every flower and face.

Then that's not a god, that's nature or the reality around you. As for the resurrection, there is a theory I read about the possibility of a planned hoax at the time to make it look like the predicted messiah had happened. The theory has it that the vinegar he was given while on the cross might have contained mandrake/cannabis and whatever to cause the same type of coma-like states that the fakirs in India go into. This would have resulted in him appearing dead and taken down before he had been up there long enough to actually die, etc. Like the shroud of turin, but back then the gullible were in larger numbers. That is of course, if any resurrection-like event even happened, since there are no writings that were actually made at the time about it.

If you could quote a verse where it says if you question the Bible you will burn forever in hell it would be most helpfull.

I don't know about questioning the bible itself, but there are tons of think-nice-thoughts-about-me commands throughout the book.

Perhaps you could explain to me your views on "About a cruel and nonsensical reward/punishment system." because I'm not seeing your perspective at all on that one.

Even for a murderer, eternal punishment is too much and serves no purpose anyways. Why would a creator god want to punish his own creations? If they were doing something he didn't like, he could wiggle his nose and change it instantly. Why punish? Does he need revenge on himself, being that it's his own creation and he is everything etc? Oh yeah, the bible says he is vengeful, what the fuck? Is that a perfect emotion one should expect from a god?

-If your god was going to end up forgiving everyone because he's not really such a mean guy as to torture people forever, why would there even be the hell you believe exists?
Once again, he doesn't forgive everyone. I can't see, without major long term social evolution , the possiblity that every human will completely agree on an idea as complex as God. Hell exists, according to reveleations, as a place after the judgement day for the unqualified to go.

If someone applied for a job at my pretend company Heaven, and they weren't qualified, I wouldn't invite them into Heaven, but I wouldn't punish them either. Why doesn't your god simply have the unqualified die unpunished. There is no need for a hell, other than to scare you believers into following the doctrines of the ruling church and contributing your money to its support.

-Why wouldn't God have given them perfected rules then? Why give them defective ones?
God did Give us "perfect rules" which were then smashed out of frustration and anger, and we had to then generalize. We got that wrong, then Jesus came to give us the inside scoop. It's still our choice to follow those rules or not.
I agree rules are a restriction of freedom. Would you prefer no rules? Nature seems to prefer rules.

Nature has no intent or deservedness to its rules. Gravity doesn't care if your thoughts are approved or not, you will be affected by it either way. The rules humans make can be good ones or bad ones. The ones based on religions are often bad as they are frequently unjust, and they refuse to adjust or update thinking they are already perfect. And your god-rules were never perfect by the way. They human made rules of modern secular societies are far more just and good than biblegod's rules ever were.

" the one they think their god had written through divine magical inspiration for them." Someone's delusion in believing God writes things down for us is none of my concern.

But it is, since you call yourself a christian. Almost all christian doctine and belief is based on that book.

-So, you are saying that a person who focuses on their own survival and happiness and the real world around them instead of placating and reassuring an imaginary supermonster through telepathy that he is so wonderful, is deserving of eternal torture?????? No, I'm saying a wholly self-centered person, who's only happiness resides in rejecting all for ignorance, greed, or self-deciet is not wothy of getting an eternal "golden ticket" and gets to fend for themselves wherever they are.

Even someone with a really really shitty personality is not worthy of eternal torture. Hell is not simply fending for oneself where ever one happens to be. It's said to be a place you are sent to against your will for doing nothing wrong, and where you are not allowed to even die and stop the pain, ever. Think about this. Please don't gloss it over or downplay it.

-"It's only sad when someone blindly accepts everything as being second-guess-worthy just because they want to trust the source, without thinking as to whether they agree or not. Otherwise, feedback is great and certainly is a big part of personal change and development." I would also say it's sad when somone ony uses themselves as a source, always trusts in it and has no need to disagree with tihemselves. Luckily I think we both operate somewhere in the middle.

No, I don't think you trust yourself enough, even to a middle ground, or you wouldn't be accepting christianity. Also, I think of myself as trusting myself to a higher than middleground degree. This is because all my experiences and perceptions and thoughts are in me. This gives me a high level of comfort and trust in that what is proven sufficiently to me, can be accepted by me with a very high level of trust. In dealing with other people telling me they believe something to be true, that trust is not there until they prove the info in such a manner that I believe it too.

I don't sin is a creation for him to creat. It's the absense of God, therefore unless you can go grab a darkness-flashlight I think you're not getting it. God did create evil. Hell is for eternity, but that's after Hades and the judgement. Growth is for the living. I don't think testing me changes my opinion of whether he's "nice" or not. It's called evaluation of worth, checking of standards, looking after the development. Schools tests our kids.. does that make them less nice?

Schools don't (or shouldn't!) punish the ones who don't learn the required stuff. Sure they are not rewarded with the higher paying jobs later due to not having the skills, but they are not tortured forever, not even for a few hours. And how can there be an absense of god? Isn't he everywhere, in everything, etc? No getting away with saying your god didn't create evil. If he created everything, then he created his own alleged enemy too, meaning evil, satan, etc.

-"If you want to play the 'that part's not really real' game, then would you admit that maybe your god is not real either? Nothing in the bible saying that you are to see him as a real being, after all...."
I fully admit the possibility that God is not real I fully grant that I have no proofs of God's existence. I don't relaly like games myself.

Good, then if that is the case, I would like to consider you agnostic, or maybe simply a hopeful deist? My respect level goes up towards believers who will not blindly accept what other humans tell them their personal god should be. That also means they will be guided by their own true inner morals (even if they think a god is telling them) instead of what an organized religion is telling them.

If you would like to discuss your percieved immorality of God's commandments, perhaps that would be a great new thread.
Thank you for your earnestness in your questions, and your humor.

Same to you. You're not as annoying as some believers I argue with! I fully reserve the right though, to get mega annoyed with your views at any time in future at my discretion, blah blah [/end disclaimer].