IF in the end, you find that God does exist ....

[Salacious B. Crumb]

What do you expect when you make a thread with no substance, and then try to call out people that are actually sane?

Really? No substance? wtf are you hanging around and responding to insanity? Nothing better to do this evening?

At this time, no. You are entertaining us. I could ask you the same question..

[Jenny A]

And you reconcile that opinion with original sin how?

And no, humans do not have a good track record with weaker things.  Come to think of it neither does god.

Honestly, I relate God to life... not necessarily to what ancient men wrote on parchment. I have a realist pov. And a litmus test I use. Works for me!

Methinks you don't understand the term "realist."

That aside, if we throw the Biblical description out and I met god, it would boil down to what is god really like?  Unless I know the answer to that question, there isn't anything useful I can tell you.  It would depend on what sort of god he turns out to be. 

Getting back to the term realist, I really don't even expect to meet my maker.  Such a being seems highly, highly unlikely.

[Iroscato]

What do you expect when you make a thread with no substance, and then try to call out people that are actually sane?

Really? No substance? wtf are you hanging around and responding to insanity? Nothing better to do this evening?

---

You do not know me, nor do you know anything of my pain. I will tell you what love means to me. Love means always being there even if it hurts to do so. Love means making sacrifices and compromises. Love means going out of your way to avoid hurting someone and doing everything in your power to comfort them when it cannot be avoided. Love means being protective and loyal. You do not seek vengeance on the ones you love. You do not sit by and watch them suffer. You do not abandon them. 

If you are right, and in the end all we have is who we've loved, that would leave your fake god completely alone. The god character in your holy book has never loved anyone but itself. 

Well... you don't know me either. And I don't need your definition of Love. What if turns out that Love is God? Then what?

Personally I enjoy taking a few minutes out of my day to slap you nutters around when you pop up. It's like whack-a-mole only with more arguing about the existence of deities and the nature of reality and the universe
And it's a lot less worrisome than devoting much of your life to unsubstantiated fairy tale bullshit.

[Esquilax]

Well.... while we're "assuming"... what IF He said: All that stuff down there is bullshit!" I created you and the others, and well.... left you on your own." I figured that you needed to
learn things on your own." And I knew that you wouldn't want me telling you anything, so I just left that great planet for you to use while I was gone." Do you hate me for that?"

First of all, if god actually said that, he wouldn't be the catholic god, really. So there's that.

Secondly, "I knew you wouldn't want me telling you anything"? No, that's actually exactly wrong. I would welcome an exchange of ideas with any god that happened to exist, assuming that it was able to actually justify the things it said beyond "because I said so." A god capable of rational discussion need not fear rejection from me, so any god asserting what you've just said here is either incapable of rational conversation, or is not omniscient.

I think the problem here is that you're adding on a whole lot of things as inextricable components of accepting the existence of god based on evidence, that simply are not linked to that. You ask whether we would "accept" your god unconditionally, where that requires that we love and worship him, and then go "aha! You just won't believe in god ever! You're just being stubborn!" when we say no, but in doing so you're conflating "belief in," with "worship of," and those are two completely separate things. I'm hoping this conflation is simply you unthinkingly extrapolating your feelings about god to being the only possible way to believe in god, that it's an honest mistake, but I dunno. You could be trying to make an ugly, grandstanding and dishonest point too.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Maybe tomorrow, ask us if we'd accept Thor as our god if he was real.

I'd give a better answer, if you gave us the parameters of what god is and exactly what the afterlife consists of.

Catholics don't agree if there is a limbo, a purgatory, or both. Do they believe souls can exist on this earthly plane as a ghost? I'd happily be a ghost on this earthly plane, it might be fun for awhile. It sure beats eternal torture.

[Losty]

---

You do not know me, nor do you know anything of my pain. I will tell you what love means to me. Love means always being there even if it hurts to do so. Love means making sacrifices and compromises. Love means going out of your way to avoid hurting someone and doing everything in your power to comfort them when it cannot be avoided. Love means being protective and loyal. You do not seek vengeance on the ones you love. You do not sit by and watch them suffer. You do not abandon them. 

If you are right, and in the end all we have is who we've loved, that would leave your fake god completely alone. The god character in your holy book has never loved anyone but itself. 

---

Well... you don't know me either. And I don't need your definition of Love. What if it turns out that God is Love? Then what?

You're kidding me right now right? I never claimed to know you or to "feel your pain". You just dismissed something that is very real to me with an "oh I've been burned too". That is so rude.

That's nice that you don't need my definition of love but you presented a question and gave no definition for me to use so I was forced to use my own.

It's funny you should ask about what if god is love. Love is a word and a concept. Both are invented my human beings and exist only within our own minds.

[Anomalocaris]

... will you unconditionally accept Him as your God?

Try to give better responses than my 5 year old. 

Yes, or no is fine.

I thought you were your five year old.

[ronedee]

Well.... while we're "assuming"... what IF He said: All that stuff down there is bullshit!" I created you and the others, and well.... left you on your own." I figured that you needed to
learn things on your own." And I knew that you wouldn't want me telling you anything, so I just left that great planet for you to use while I was gone." Do you hate me for that?"

First of all, if god actually said that, he wouldn't be the catholic god, really. So there's that.

Secondly, "I knew you wouldn't want me telling you anything"? No, that's actually exactly wrong. I would welcome an exchange of ideas with any god that happened to exist, assuming that it was able to actually justify the things it said beyond "because I said so." A god capable of rational discussion need not fear rejection from me, so any god asserting what you've just said here is either incapable of rational conversation, or is not omniscient.

I think the problem here is that you're adding on a whole lot of things as inextricable components of accepting the existence of god based on evidence, that simply are not linked to that. You ask whether we would "accept" your god unconditionally, where that requires that we love and worship him, and then go "aha! You just won't believe in god ever! You're just being stubborn!" when we say no, but in doing so you're conflating "belief in," with "worship of," and those are two completely separate things. I'm hoping this conflation is simply you unthinkingly extrapolating your feelings about god to being the only possible way to believe in god, that it's an honest mistake, but I dunno. You could be trying to make an ugly, grandstanding and dishonest point too.

That was just a tongue in cheek response. There was no forethought or conflating the issue. The whole point is that we don't know exactly what God is. Only that He represents the Creator to us through history. So, why is emotion involved? If indeed we are created independent, freethinkers why are we pissed at Him? For what exactly? Maybe there is a good reason for the way things are? Who are we to judge our creator? So, when confronted with our "Big Daddy"... do we love Him for giving us life? Or hate Him for giving us life?

[Captain Monkeyshines]

If the evidence proves that there is a god, then yes I would accept the fact.....follow and sing his praises (accepting said god as a savior) never. He's a psycopathic asshat, besides, I'd make a horrible cloud dweller. I hate lyres and angles. I would need sunglasses too... those streets of gold would be blindingly bright in the sunshine.

[Losty]

---

First of all, if god actually said that, he wouldn't be the catholic god, really. So there's that.

Secondly, "I knew you wouldn't want me telling you anything"? No, that's actually exactly wrong. I would welcome an exchange of ideas with any god that happened to exist, assuming that it was able to actually justify the things it said beyond "because I said so." A god capable of rational discussion need not fear rejection from me, so any god asserting what you've just said here is either incapable of rational conversation, or is not omniscient.

I think the problem here is that you're adding on a whole lot of things as inextricable components of accepting the existence of god based on evidence, that simply are not linked to that. You ask whether we would "accept" your god unconditionally, where that requires that we love and worship him, and then go "aha! You just won't believe in god ever! You're just being stubborn!" when we say no, but in doing so you're conflating "belief in," with "worship of," and those are two completely separate things. I'm hoping this conflation is simply you unthinkingly extrapolating your feelings about god to being the only possible way to believe in god, that it's an honest mistake, but I dunno. You could be trying to make an ugly, grandstanding and dishonest point too.

---

That was just a tongue in cheek response. There was no forethought or conflating the issue. The whole point is that we don't know exactly what God is. Only that He represents the Creator to us through history. So, why is emotion involved? If indeed we are created independent, freethinkers why are we pissed at Him? For what exactly? Maybe there is a good reason for the way things are? Who are we to judge our creator? So, when confronted with our "Big Daddy"... do we love Him for giving us life? Or hate Him for giving us life?

You see...this is where things get caught up. It isn't who are we to question him, but who is he to demand love from us? If a god wanted people to love it, it should either be loveable or create people without brains. Why should you say who are we? Why do you think so little of yourself that you do not consider yourself worthy of an explanation from some being that demands your love and worship?