Proverbs 16:4

[Statler Waldorf]

---

"Might makes right" is not a reason to worship anyone. You can pretend to in order to not suffer the negative consequences, but you can't claim that the being you're worshiping is then fair & just.

---

Might makes right is only fallacious if the being containing the might is fallible. Of course God is infallible so it’s completely a valid argument to make.

---

Do I really need to? It's standard Christian doctrine. If I prayed to a rock, worshiped it, and called it "God," would I not be in violation of the first commandment? When I was raised Catholic, I was told all sorts of stuff I couldn't do because it offended God, and if you did it knowingly then you get sent to hell unless you repent & confess. Protestants think that Catholics are going to hell because they pray to statues. Muslims think that Christians are going to hell for eating pork and now bowing to Allah. And each Christian denomination came about because some people in a congregation didn't like what some of the others believed and split off to form their own group.

---

You would go to hell for committing idolatry, not for worshipping God in the “wrong” way. Idolatry is worshipping something other than God or in place of God. Protestants do not believe all Catholics are going to hell.

---

Then he's not a being worth being worshiped. When he tells his followers to not kill, then tells some others to kill everyone in a particular town because they're evil, then you can't trust a deity with a double standard. If he's not even obligated to follow any rules at all, there's nothing that guarantees anyone passage into heaven. He could send everyone who ever existed to hell just for kicks and there's nothing anyone could say or do about it. The trouble is you see no problem with this because you have no problem whatsoever with the idea of a god who can do whatever he wants, and not only that you still call him just and fair. You can call him whatever you want, but you can't change the definition of words.

---

So when your parents told you that you could not watch the movie they were going to watch they were “unfair” and not worthy of respect and love? Don’t ridiculous. God’s nature is that He does not lie, so when He says He is just, He is just, when He says He is loving, He is loving. It’s pretty simple logic really.
1. God is infallible, He never lies.
2. God says He is loving.
3. Therefore God is loving.
Completely valid argument.

---

Including torturing people for eternity and having people on earth killed on a whim. Gotcha.

---

Judging sinners with the appropriate punishment, just. Having sinners destroy other sinners in order to fulfill His purpose, also just. No problems there.

---

This is stupid. You're forgetting that God knew that Adam & Eve would disobey, yet he created them and put the fucking tree of knowledge right in the middle of the fucking Garden of Eden and told them not to eat from it. How fair and just is it to punish the entire bulk of humanity when he knew the first two humans would disobey him? To maintain that it's just and fair is just being totally willfully stupid, arrogant, and stubborn. There's no way you could ever justify punishing all of humanity for what the first two humans supposedly did. And where you really fail is that the Adam & Eve story was just a myth to begin with.

---

Knowing is not synonymous with causing.

---

The problem with this is that you can't condemn an entire country just because of what its leaders do. It's not just, nor is it fair. Even after WWII we helped the Germans rebuild and get on with their lives. We jailed the Nazis who were responsible, we didn't jail the entire country for what its leadership did.

---

You mean when the US and UK leveled Berlin they were only bombing Nazis? Give me a break. We helped them rebuild because their leaders surrendered so the entire country was no longer at war with us either. Or did we make each individual surrender? My point still stands. Responsibility is passed down to all by their representatives.

---

I haven't. Define "sin" without using supernatural explanations.

---

What? Sin is a theological term so of course it has to deal with the supernatural. Stop trying to take the discussion off course. We both have broken the laws set forth in scripture numerous times we have both sinned in addition to our original sin.

---

Nope, it's not. It's not fair nor just to condemn all of humanity to eternal torture for what two people supposedly did WHEN THE ONE DOING THE CONDEMNING KNEW ALL ALONG THAT THEY WOULD DISOBEY HIM. Sorry for the all-caps, but I feel like I need to scream this point that you seem to be ignoring.

---

Apology accepted. I don’t see why you think God’s knowledge of the situation is in any way relevant. If my parents knew I was going to sneak out and break their rules, it in no way makes them responsible and me innocent. I still broke the rules.

---

When you made the analogy of the better deal of getting a life sentence rather than the death penalty.

---

I was speaking about common grace, not saving grace in that analogy. I apologize if I did not make that clear.

[Minimalist]

So that's the gospel according to Waldork, huh?


Sounds just as bad as the others.

[everythingafter]

Wait wait, so you are using concepts of justice, fairness, and love that people have determined and you are trying to apply them to God? That seems a bit backwards. I would think that God would determine what was just, fair, and loving.

I'm applying those human-conceived concepts to the established idea of God from the Judeo-Christian view, yes (all-knowing, all-loving, etc.). Not to God himself, as if I'm assuming he exists. That would be absurd.

[Doubting Thomas]

Might makes right is only fallacious if the being containing the might is fallible. Of course God is infallible so it’s completely a valid argument to make.

But how do you know this for sure? Even if God is infallible, "might makes right" doesn't make him a being worth being worshiped.

You would go to hell for committing idolatry, not for worshipping God in the “wrong” way.

WTF is the difference? What if that rock were my god? People have worshiped other gods besides Yahweh, and according to your doctrine they not only burn in hell for eternity, but deserve to.

Protestants do not believe all Catholics are going to hell.

Then why don't they practice Catholicism? According to Protestants, Catholics are not worshiping God the right way. If they were, then all Protestants would be Catholics. And Catholics believe that Protestants are not worshiping God the correct way.

God’s nature is that He does not lie, so when He says He is just, He is just, when He says He is loving, He is loving. It’s pretty simple logic really.
1. God is infallible, He never lies.
2. God says He is loving.
3. Therefore God is loving.
Completely valid argument.

Completely circular argument. God is loving because he says so? And God does lie. He told Adam & Eve that they would die on the day they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, but they lived for 900-some years. It was actually the serpent which told the truth.

Judging sinners with the appropriate punishment, just. Having sinners destroy other sinners in order to fulfill His purpose, also just. No problems there.

I was referring to natural disasters, mainly. So kids in Ethiopia starve to death because they're evil sinners, while kids in industrialized countries who probably commit the same sins or worse live to a ripe old age? Your god is a monster not to mention totally inconsistent.

Knowing is not synonymous with causing.

Bullshit. If you know thousands of years in advance that the first two people you make will disobey you, why not arrange things differently so that it didn't happen? Why not take away the serpent's ability to speak? And why would you put the tree of knowledge right in their midst just to make it easier for them to disobey? And how could you ever justify punishing all the billions of people to come after for something you knew the first two people would do? Basically the whole story is like placing a cookie in the middle of the nursery floor and telling your 1 year old not to eat it. Then when he does, you punish not only him but his children and grandchildren forever unless they happen to kiss your ass to your satisfaction.

What? Sin is a theological term so of course it has to deal with the supernatural. Stop trying to take the discussion off course. We both have broken the laws set forth in scripture numerous times we have both sinned in addition to our original sin.

I'm not trying to go off course, I'm just refuting your claim that I've sinned. I have never sinned, and you have never sinned. Without a god, there's no such thing as sin. But the whole idea of original sin is what is totally unfair about the basic idea of Christianity, which is that we need to be "saved" from original sin because for some reason they think it's totally fair & just to punish all of humanity for what two mythical people did. My stance is that it's not.

I don’t see why you think God’s knowledge of the situation is in any way relevant. If my parents knew I was going to sneak out and break their rules, it in no way makes them responsible and me innocent. I still broke the rules.

But your parents didn't conceive you with the knowledge of every single time you are going to disobey them. Nor do good parents put a bowl full of candy in the middle of the floor where kids are playing and expect them to not eat it when they're told, knowing full well that they will as soon as their back is turned. Nor do good parents who are fair to their children punish them all for what just one of them did before they were born. If my oldest brother had stolen a cookie from the cookie jar before I was born, would that justify my parents spanking me for it? In your scenario of God's might making him right no matter what, it is fair. In my world of reality, I say that it's not.

I really wish you could see things from my perspective, but you've got your blinders on so tight that you just can't understand why your idea of God shows him as an unjust, unfair ruler. You not only can't see outside your little box, you refuse to because you've brainwashed yourself into seeing God only as an all-loving deity because he says he is. Your idea that we should worship and love him because he could just squash us like little bugs is telling. You can go on believing that he would be just and fair even if he did this, but I just can't.

[JohnDG]

I really wish you could see things from my perspective, but you've got your blinders on so tight that you just can't understand why your idea of God shows him as an unjust, unfair ruler. You not only can't see outside your little box, you refuse to because you've brainwashed yourself into seeing God only as an all-loving deity because he says he is. Your idea that we should worship and love him because he could just squash us like little bugs is telling. You can go on believing that he would be just and fair even if he did this, but I just can't.

I don't believe anyone could say it better.

"Although it's possible to word it better"

[Zenith]

I don't understand why you guys waste your time with Statler Waldorf, really.

When I'll have some more time I think I will reply to some things. Now I've just taken a quick look to what you've talked here.

[Ace Otana]

I don't understand why you guys waste your time with Statler Waldorf, really.

I ask myself the same thing. No point in arguing with a creationist. Can't argue with a mind like that.
I always avoid talking to them. It's like talking to a brick wall.

[Zenith]

I ask myself the same thing. No point in arguing with a creationist. Can't argue with a mind like that.
I always avoid talking to them. It's like talking to a brick wall.

I didn't know he is a creationist. The reason I said that is because:
a) he might be a 16 years old boy or around (look at his avatar; also he doesn't seem too mature). So why get frustrated?
b) he seems to be that kind of guy whom you ask something smart, he gives a very quick stupid answer, that proves nothing, and then writes at you with an attitude like "if you don't understand now, you must be really stupid!" (I don't think he tried to insult somebody, I only mean the attitude of self-confidence, thinking that it's your problem)
c) from the quick look I took on his posts, he appears to say nothing coming from his own conclusions, but only things that you hear everywhere. (i.e. he's indoctrinated in those theories)

[RDK]

If trying to understand God by Bible standards does not make sense to you, then there is a misunderstanding somewhere. God did not give us thinking minds to see these things, and then expect us not to make reasonable decisions about the difficulties. There is information lacking that makes all of these things clear. If there is a truth to God, it has to be clear and understandable to all of those involved. I get flack from Christians all of the time when I question the lack of sensibility of some of scripture. I know that we will be judged by what we understand, not something which can make no sense to us yet. My relationship with God is not based on what I read and can not understand, but with what I can. I feel that your questions and observations are valid. God understands reason and doubt. I know it is hard to believe in God the way He is portrayed in some parts of scripture. I don't blame you for your doubt or anger. I don't think that God does either. He just wants a loving relationship with us, and with that we will understand more.

[Zenith]

I agree with the verse. I did not state at any time that God created people evil, merely that he created people andb evil. He created us for the propensity for evil, knowing we would opt for options, and I can only hope that in the long run he sees it being a betterment on the overall of creation.
God is not all loving as he does hate, and they are opposites in the common concepts. He does however love people regardless of the lives they choose. As a Christian I'm not farmiliar with God being a Santa Claus being a common concept, perhaps it is in your regional experience, but not in mine. I'm not sure of your exact question in the next to last sentence. Perhaps you could restate and clarify for me. Thanks!

Is "andb" a mistake? Nonetheless, I don't understand clearly what you mean.
I thought that that tendency to do evil - i.e. it is much easier to do evil than to do good, so the "evil" (hating, despising, envying, with all the effects that come with them) is done even unintentionally by us, even if we really struggle not to do them, and they come much more easily when you're not careful about them, while for "good" (caring, forgiving, giving respect to all people, have good intentions) you really have to struggle, to be in that way. And this is what I understand of the "inherited sin" (which it seems to be represented, and to support my view, in Romans 7.14-23)

As about Santa Claus, I did not mean it literally (i.e. to be dressed in red with white, etc.). I meant how Santa Claus is regarded: as a cheerful old man that thinks only of good and comes to fulfill any wish people (i.e. children) have. And there are many people that see God as such. I've heard an orthodox christian saying that "God is bleeding love", a pentecostal saying that "God is delicate", etc. There are people that see God as an over-compassionate person that falls to his feelings of love, and who would never punish anybody in a hell (well, except for the extremely evil persons!). Very probably from this theory, many atheists also see God somewhat similar (e.g. that God, in order to exist, must do all good to them, unconditionally, and forgive everything they do, unconditionally. And if He does not do so, it means that He does not exist).

That question of mine was quite rhetorical. And I meant that a Creator (that is a responsible person, with all mental faculties) would not be defined as "good" if He was as described above, but stupid (i.e. you do everything against Him, rape children, kill people, mock Him, etc., but Him to simply act as nothing happened).

---

My relationship with God is not based on what I read and can not understand, but with what I can.

He just wants a loving relationship with us, and with that we will understand more.

Please define your "relationship with God" and "a loving relationship [of God] with us".