Support NeoGAF

[JetBlackPanda]

I beg to differ.

The mormon church was defined by these beliefs.

It used to be defined by polygamy, the belief that man could become like god, and their insistence that minorities not get the priesthood.

Now polygamy is gone, and the minority beliefs, and now even the belief that man can become as God is gone. So like I said, if mormons don't believe mormon doctrine then what exactly do they believe? The things that they are stripping away are things that were cornerstones of the church in the past (don't believe me check out Mormon History). It seems that the only beliefs left to the church are that the Book of Mormon is true (even though some apostles think that it's divine fiction instead of 100% true) and eternal marriage. But without the belief in eternal progression what's the point of eternal marriage?

I understand what you are saying, but the LDS church also thrives on having a living prophet with revelation, are we not to expect changes?

please don't take this as me trying to fight with you I just see both sides and it makes for a good discussion.

 

[ronito]

I understand what you are saying, but the LDS church also thrives on having a living prophet with revelation, are we not to expect changes?

please don't take this as me trying to fight with you I just see both sides and it makes for a good discussion.

This would be certainly true, but it's the core beliefs, it's the very foundation. You can't just go and change the foundation of your religion here and there and claim to be the same religion. Already observant older people are commenting how the young people don't belong to the same church they did.

How much longer until the LDS church ends up becoming like the RLDS church where they disavowed Joseph Smith and the book of mormon and now call themselves "The Community of Christ"?

 

[DanteFox]

Meus is back! Yay!

[That's genuine, btw. I've always admired your reasonable-ness.]

Okay, you guys, I kind of lost my cool when talking to this pastor I know on Facebook...it's a long conversation that, if pressed, I'll link to, but the final straw, so to speak, was this post:

[tl;dr warning]



Here's what I typed out, being annoyed an' all:



He hasn't replied. Did I go over the top? I can't tell how I "sound" in written language...

More importantly, did I say anything that was, you know, flat-out wrong?

Atheism is an idea. It's the idea that God doesn't exist. It's hilarious how atheists like to make atheism some kind of ethereal non-idea in order to make it immune to the kind of attacks that religion is exposed to all the time.

 

[Panda Bear]

Atheism is an idea. It's the idea that God doesn't exist. It's hilarious how atheists like to make atheism some kind of ethereal non-idea in order to make it immune to the kind of attacks that religion is exposed to all the time.

Atheism literally means "without belief in a deity." The idea that God doesn't exist is more appropriately called anti-theism, which can also encompass an outward opposition to anything having to do with God or religion. I understand what you mean though, many "new" atheists who have been influenced by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and the like are in actuality anti-theists but like to call themselves atheists and claim they simply lack belief in God in order to avoid criticism. Of course it's always rather difficult to tell the difference between someone who simply lacks belief in God and someone who is an anti-theist when one is just reading individual posts on a forum so it's a little irresponsible to make generic statements about atheists like you just did.

 

[jdogmoney]

Atheism is an idea. It's the idea that God doesn't exist. It's hilarious how atheists like to make atheism some kind of ethereal non-idea in order to make it immune to the kind of attacks that religion is exposed to all the time.

I friggin' love your avatar.

Yeah, like Panda Bear said. I made the comparison that atheism is an idea in the same way that "bald" is a hair color.

 

[DanteFox]

Atheism is a part of a person's worldview, just like religion. Call it what you want, but fact is, atheism informs the rest of a persons ideas and actions. It's not written down in a book, and no one's saying it is. There aren't 10 commandments all atheists have to follow, and no one is saying there are. I simply find it baffling how atheists act as if their beliefs exist in a vacuum, impervious to criticism, simply because there are no explicit atheist commandments. There are logical and philosophical consequences to this "lack of belief," just like someone not believing in global warming or not believing in realities outside their own mind will influence the way they act.

 

[jdogmoney]

I simply find it baffling how atheists act as if their beliefs exist in a vacuum

More like our beliefs are a vacuum, amirite?

I never said you can't criticize atheism. Go ahead, do so, I really don't care. I'm simply concerned with discussing things with accuracy. A lack of belief is not a belief, in and of itself.

And atheism really doesn't inform any of my actions. The only thing I can think of is that it might somehow limit my dating pool; hard to go out with someone who thinks I'm going to writhe in hellfire for all eternity. I wouldn't call it quits off of that, though.

There are metaphysical ramifications, sure, but again, I never said there weren't.

 

[soul creator]

I would say that all of the "logical consequences" are simply the result of living in a society that pushes god belief as the default, rather than it having anything to do with something inherent with lack of belief. This is a typical thing with any minority group, btw. It's like when people say "homosexuals are more likely to be depressed!", as if there's something inherent within homosexuality that causes that, when the primary issue that should be looked at first is living in a homophobic society.

I lack belief in God, the same exact way I lack belief in millions of other beings humans have made up. Funny thing is, even the typical believer is perfectly fine with being an "atheist" when it comes to every other god human beings have created, and no one thinks anything of it. My "lack of belief" in Zoroastrianism and Ahura Mazda doesn't really factor into my (or any other person's) day to day life.

But when God #4,080 is proposed, we're supposed to pretend like "no really, this one actually makes sense and is totally true and serious", even though it's still the same magic idea like the other #4,079 that an atheist and a theist both have no problems ignoring.

 

[Mgoblue201]

That's true. God created the rules that humans need to eat. He also created the rules that in the event the family could not take care of the child, the people as a whole would. It worked perfectly fine for both Jews and Christians.

Hmm, I wonder what changed...


This ties in to what you stated. God made the rules that provide for feeding the poor/hungry. When someone does not do that, they are working contrary to the goodwill of their neighbor.

I will state that I have never heard of anyone not thanking the person feeding them (& I've fed a lot), but you may know some more zealous for God, poor, starving people than me.

I was talking about the punishment for not believing, not the suffering on Earth, but if we're going to go down this road again, then God created some very bad rules for feeding the poor. The world has never had the infrastructure for feeding every single person, even now. The world has a finite amount of resources. It doesn't matter who takes care of the child. Suffering has always been a product of time and place.

 

[soul creator]

I actually gave the answer. In the Bible there was always a pretty clear cut way of identifying a miracle had tajken place. Someone personally experiencing it does not necessarily fit into that criteria.

However, as atheists are often quick to point out, there is no methodology in faith to someone who desn't have it. Therefore, there is no way to "prove it". Why does someone need to prove a blessing to someone else anyway? When someone tells you that, you nod/smirk/slap your forehead and move on.

that's very convenient . I suppose that's where I differ when it comes to determining something is "true" or not. "Facts" shouldn't depend on anyone's personal feelings. That's why religions are good for that personal motivating factor you were talking about, and science works better for explaining reality. With science, there's an actual common ground. For example, someone of a different religion could use the exact same rationale you're using ("The force doesn't work for you because you don't have faith in it). Are you both right? Both wrong? One right, one wrong? How is this determined?

I didn't say that. in fact, I said the opposite. God helps those who follow him. I've repeatedly said that in a hundred other posts. God is partial to those who follow him and he helps them. I'm just saying that the "help" does not necessarily include getting us out of a bind or stopping us for the effects of illness or dying.

But plenty of followers of god have said that god has gotten them out of a bind and/or stopping the effects of illness. Are they lying? If so, how do you know? It seems like believers just kinda randomly decide what's a "real" religious claim and what's just a "personal motivator", but there's no actual consistency to it.

The progressive religious belief is what been in the Bibnle for thousands of years so not sure why it's unusual now.

Well that are tons of parts of the Bible that have been in there for thousands of years that people ignore, or chalk up as a metaphor. What process is used to determine the difference? Why is "Jesus was resurrected and did miracles" a magical event that actually happened, but Noah's Flood which resulted in essentially the destruction of humanity is just an exaggerated metaphor?

You are reading me incorrectly.

sorry.

Well, if you think life is a generic thing then I guess you're right. However, I was thinking you are arguing why people thank God for the little things. I'm saying that it's all tied to our life. There is nothing wrong with thinking about God in all of our activities. It's not a grand divine revelation since people have been doing it for thousands of years (Acoss any number of different religions no less) and won't stop anytime soon. If anything it's a natural revelation.

You say "any number of different religions" like it's just a casual thing, when it's kind of the main point I was trying to get across. Is it ever at all possible to determine that Religion A is actually being truthful when it comes to thanking god, while Religion B is just a "personal motivating factor" when it comes to thanking god?

And when I say "truth", I'm not talking about the open ended "Everyone's got their own truth if it makes them feel good!" thing that people tend to use when discussing this. I'm more referring to actual events/actions.

And if it's now just a "natural revelation" (which I mostly agree with), once again, where does God fit into all of this? It's interesting how we can probably agree on 99% of things without needing to involve a god. But then you throw a huge monkey wrench into it by adding God at the end :lol

progressive religious believer: "we should try to help poor people, it's the natural, humanistic thing to do"
soul creator: "I completely agree!"
progressive religious believer: "yeah, the creator of the universe's son told me about it as well. Before he did a bunch of miracles and died, and was resurrected, he was all like hey, we should help poor people."
soul creator: "wait, what?"

Like what?

What are God's thoughts on FGM? What are God's thoughts on copyright law? What are God's thoughts on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

Proofs?

As mentioned above, an easy one is Noah's Flood. Of course, most modern, progressive Christians chalk that up as just a metaphor or exaggerated story, but I've never heard the reasoning for why God's actions there aren't literal, but the Resurrection of Jesus part totally happened.

How do you determine that one magic event is a story, and another magic event is totally real? You can't say "evidence and reason" because if so, we wouldn't be believing any of them in the first place :lol

Ok, I left out unforseen occurrence which is not suffering by a long shot.

It'd be interesting to see if the man who lost his fiance to a freak accident completely out of his control shares your viewpoint that it's not suffering.

It's just death. It happens.

How atheistic of you!

Don't forget that no one is thanking God that the man survived either because it was a tragedy all the way around. Still not tied to God unless you think he should have made it stop lightening.

Once again, that's kind of the point. What's the reason for his fiance dying, but him living? You're essentially saying that well, shit happens. Which I agree with. But "shit happens" doesn't work very well in conjunction with "god watching over us and helping us". Once you add god to the equation, a whole bunch of questions are raised.

If one believes God created the universe, and the earth, and supposedly loves and cares about human beings...then yes, he could have stopped lightning. Or made us lightning proof. That's kind of what being God entails! If God doesn't want people to die from random lightning strikes he can make it so that it doesn't happen. It's weird that people give more leeway to the all powerful divine creator of the universe than they do to Microsoft consoles. The 360 red rings, and everyone screams at MS for being irresponsible. Natural disasters destroy human lives that god supposedly cares about, and he gets a pass for all of it, as if god has nothing to do with the Earth and it's processes, and had no control over it.

Now of course, if God just kind of made the universe, and just lets it do its own thing, and we're all just kind of a big experiment, then sure, that would theoretically make more sense. But as mentioned before, why worship this type of God or think that it cares about human beings in any way? Most believers don't believe in the "god exists, but doesn't really care what happens to us" type of god, after all.

God does get involved. He's just not the Superman atheists seem to want him to be.

I'm just wondering why "god's involvement" always looks suspiciously like regular old humans doing regular human things. Yes, if one is proposing that the divine creator of the universe is somehow involving itself in our lives, then yes, I expect more than just "inspire a person to feed poor people". There's no evidence at all that a God is needed to inspire people to do that, so I'm not sure why he gets credit for things like that.

If all "Superman" did was donate $20 a month to his favorite charity, then it would seem silly to think that the same guy is some sort of superpowered alien from the planet Krypton.

And what's funny about all this is that it's believers who are the ones that initially propose God as the "superman". Y'all (general "y'all", not necessarily you specifically) are the ones saying he can create entire universes and every living thing with magic, and somehow track our eternal souls throughout eternity. Y'all are the ones saying he can somehow telepathically communicate with believers throughout the world. Y'all are the ones saying he can come back alive after being dead for 3 days. Y'all are the ones that throughout history have been explaining every unexplained occurrence with the magic of God. Y'all are the ones that throughout history have repeatedly mentioned how God is so awesome, and he loves us, and if we just followed him, everything would be better off.

But as soon a nonbeliever asks to resolve some basic inconsistencies, they're being unreasonable and "wanting god to be superman" :lol And then people go and take regular nice human actions, and give god all the credit for them, but when a negative human action is brought up (or a negative action that hurt an innocent human), then divine oversight is mysteriously absent all of a sudden. It's all a very convenient story. Of course, that's why the current religions have been able to persist for so long

You don't get to make up the options! But you do have the option of thinking you can make the options. :/

lol

 

[LCGeek]

What are God's thoughts on FGM? What are God's thoughts on copyright law? What are God's thoughts on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's sums up the copyright bit and most aspects of the material realm. God's thoughts on the subjects are varied considering under the context of most religion we are a part of god, so take your pick with all the choices and tell me which one settles in your mind.

 

[JumpJeff84]

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's sums up the copyright bit and most aspects of the material realm. God's thoughts on the subjects are varied considering under the context of most religion we are a part of god, so take your pick with all the choices and tell me which one settles in your mind.

I only clicked on this thread because I saw your name as the most recent poster, and I was like "Oh goody, I bet he'll really bring da crazy!"

After reading your post (with no real context, I must admit) I hafta say I'm not disappointed.

 

[soul creator]

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's sums up the copyright bit and most aspects of the material realm. God's thoughts on the subjects are varied considering under the context of most religion we are a part of god, so take your pick with all the choices and tell me which one settles in your mind.

exactly!

 

[LCGeek]

I only clicked on this thread because I saw your name as the most recent poster, and I was like "Oh goody, I bet he'll really bring da crazy!"

After reading your post (with no real context, I must admit) I hafta say I'm not disappointed.

Soul creator just inspires the crazy spirit within me as do others here in their own ways. Think about it if you were a rubik's cube of infinite consciousness I think the atheist is more preferred conformity no matter what gets boring doesn't it?

 

[Shanadeus]

Soul creator just inspires the crazy spirit within me as do others here in their own ways. Think about it if you were a rubik's cube of infinite consciousness I think the atheist is more preferred conformity no matter what gets boring doesn't it?

Yes, I see.

 

[LCGeek]

Yes, I see.

Perceive my friend seeing is only 1/5 of your supposed senses.

 

[weepy]

Wow. I'm amazed this thread lasted as long as it did. I expected it to be trolled to high heaven and back (no pun intended). Looks like there still are a good amount of people who appreciate religion without being fanatics.

 

[Dude Abides]

Atheism is a part of a person's worldview, just like religion. Call it what you want, but fact is, atheism informs the rest of a persons ideas and actions. It's not written down in a book, and no one's saying it is. There aren't 10 commandments all atheists have to follow, and no one is saying there are. I simply find it baffling how atheists act as if their beliefs exist in a vacuum, impervious to criticism, simply because there are no explicit atheist commandments. There are logical and philosophical consequences to this "lack of belief," just like someone not believing in global warming or not believing in realities outside their own mind will influence the way they act.

Do you think space unicorns exist? If not, is that a belief that informs the rest of your ideas and actions?

That's true. God created the rules that humans need to eat. He also created the rules that in the event the family could not take care of the child, the people as a whole would. It worked perfectly fine for both Jews and Christians.

Not really.

 

[Shanadeus]

Perceive my friend seeing is only 1/5 of your supposed senses.

Make that 2/6, I'm also using my inner sight.

 

[soul creator]

Make that 2/6, I'm also using my inner sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_eye ?

 

[JGS]

that's very convenient . I suppose that's where I differ when it comes to determining something is "true" or not. "Facts" shouldn't depend on anyone's personal feelings. That's why religions are good for that personal motivating factor you were talking about, and science works better for explaining reality. With science, there's an actual common ground. For example, someone of a different religion could use the exact same rationale you're using ("The force doesn't work for you because you don't have faith in it). Are you both right? Both wrong? One right, one wrong? How is this determined?

It's always been that way. People with faith have plenty of proof, but proving it to others simply for debating purposes is a waste of time. It reminds me of Jodie Foster's character in contact being asked to prove she loved her father.

]But plenty of followers of god have said that god has gotten them out of a bind and/or stopping the effects of illness. Are they lying? If so, how do you know? It seems like believers just kinda randomly decide what's a "real" religious claim and what's just a "personal motivator", but there's no actual consistency to it.

It amazes me how there is only "either/or" options with people in here.

They're not lying at all, they just believe it. They can say whatever they want and it's not my place to verbally disagree with them when it has no impact on m one way or the other.

Well that are tons of parts of the Bible that have been in there for thousands of years that people ignore, or chalk up as a metaphor. What process is used to determine the difference? Why is "Jesus was resurrected and did miracles" a magical event that actually happened, but Noah's Flood which resulted in essentially the destruction of humanity is just an exaggerated metaphor?

I've said this before, but the vast majority of scriptures tells you what's a metaphor/symbol/illustartion. You ignore nothing for fear of missing something.

You say "any number of different religions" like it's just a casual thing, when it's kind of the main point I was trying to get across. Is it ever at all possible to determine that Religion A is actually being truthful when it comes to thanking god, while Religion B is just a "personal motivating factor" when it comes to thanking god?

Religion A & B should be thanking God. The answer lies in whatever holy text the religion is based on. I'm not going off opinion, I'm going off what is written. What is written indicates that when people were cured, it was clear. There was no mystery as to what transpired.

What is also made clear is that since God is the Creator, he is worthy of praise just on that basis alone. So every day we have life and every day we stay alive, we should be thankful. That sounds generic, but it also makes clear a thousand different ways we can show appreciation for our life.

And when I say "truth", I'm not talking about the open ended "Everyone's got their own truth if it makes them feel good!" thing that people tend to use when discussing this. I'm more referring to actual events/actions.

And if it's now just a "natural revelation" (which I mostly agree with), once again, where does God fit into all of this? It's interesting how we can probably agree on 99% of things without needing to involve a god. But then you throw a huge monkey wrench into it by adding God at the end :lol

progressive religious believer: "we should try to help poor people, it's the natural, humanistic thing to do"
soul creator: "I completely agree!"
progressive religious believer: "yeah, the creator of the universe's son told me about it as well. Before he did a bunch of miracles and died, and was resurrected, he was all like hey, we should help poor people."
soul creator: "wait, what?"

If we agree on 99% of everything, then the remaining 1% should not have any bearing whatsoever unless someone is condemning the other because of it. If the poor are being taken care of, why does it matter that one person see's it as doing God's work - which would be true on his end?

What are God's thoughts on FGM? What are God's thoughts on copyright law? What are God's thoughts on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

1. FGM - It wasn't a Biblical practice which makes sense considering the damage caused even in this day and age. Male circumcision was only practiced by the Jews and done away with the beginning of Christianity.
2. Copyright law is tied to ownership. Ownership was a big thing in Bible times.
3. Gulf of Mexico is tied to both greed and ruining the earth, both addressed in scripture.

As mentioned above, an easy one is Noah's Flood. Of course, most modern, progressive Christians chalk that up as just a metaphor or exaggerated story, but I've never heard the reasoning for why God's actions there aren't literal, but the Resurrection of Jesus part totally happened.

How do you determine that one magic event is a story, and another magic event is totally real? You can't say "evidence and reason" because if so, we wouldn't be believing any of them in the first place :lol

I'm not sure why "Progressive Christians" would have a problem with the Flood account in terms of it flat out not happening considering that out of all the great mythologies out there, a great flood myth ties the majority of civilizations together.

It'd be interesting to see if the man who lost his fiance to a freak accident completely out of his control shares your viewpoint that it's not suffering.

He's certainly suffering now - out of grief. That's what happens when we lose loved ones. I suffered immensely when my grandmother died even though everyone knew she was going to die at a ripe old age and of natural causes.

Both you and I know that the suffering we were addressing had more to do with watching a kid starve when there is plenty of food to give him or the idea that it's a good idea to go to war at the cost of many civilian lives.

So unless you are saying that death is suffering and God should thus end death, you can't equate the two "sufferings" as equal.

How atheistic of you!

Believe it or not, religious folk believe death happens too. There are some parts of science we adhere to...

Once again, that's kind of the point. What's the reason for his fiance dying, but him living? You're essentially saying that well, shit happens. Which I agree with. But "shit happens" doesn't work very well in conjunction with "god watching over us and helping us". Once you add god to the equation, a whole bunch of questions are raised.

Again, you are misinterpretting what that means. You are coming up with your own relgious belief to provide a counter argument. I don't know all religions, but I will eat my hat if there is a major religion out there that thinks God protects us from all. You are throwing out individual instances and then trying to apply them to religion in general which does not work. The proof is in what is said and written, not in what people's opinions are.

If one believes God created the universe, and the earth, and supposedly loves and cares about human beings...then yes, he could have stopped lightning. Or made us lightning proof. That's kind of what being God entails! If God doesn't want people to die from random lightning strikes he can make it so that it doesn't happen. It's weird that people give more leeway to the all powerful divine creator of the universe than they do to Microsoft consoles. The 360 red rings, and everyone screams at MS for being irresponsible. Natural disasters destroy human lives that god supposedly cares about, and he gets a pass for all of it, as if god has nothing to do with the Earth and it's processes, and had no control over it.

I created my kids but that doesn't mean I have the ability to take care of them all of their life even by chance occurrences. Of course, God's more powerful than I, and he could protect us from any manner of things, but then why should he be required to? That's the part I don't get - especially if you don't worship him? Depending on the religion, there are any number of rewards that result in worshipping him depsite the risks &/or certainties of death we face.

The problem is that atheists look at this life as all there is and don't understand why someone would worship someone as a result of this life.

Now of course, if God just kind of made the universe, and just lets it do its own thing, and we're all just kind of a big experiment, then sure, that would theoretically make more sense. But as mentioned before, why worship this type of God or think that it cares about human beings in any way? Most believers don't believe in the "god exists, but doesn't really care what happens to us" type of god, after all.

Again, you're limiting the options. Another option would be that God is interested in people and wants to see how they live their life, especially since they spent their entire existence tryong to prove they could live without him. Further, it makes the ones who say they can't live without him all the more special.

]I'm just wondering why "god's involvement" always looks suspiciously like regular old humans doing regular human things. Yes, if one is proposing that the divine creator of the universe is somehow involving itself in our lives, then yes, I expect more than just "inspire a person to feed poor people". There's no evidence at all that a God is needed to inspire people to do that, so I'm not sure why he gets credit for things like that.

That's not true at all. Religious people and their orginizations are far more giving. That can't even be disputed. Charity was indeed influenced by religion, not government or individual, even if non-believers don't do it for God themselves. I chalk it up to evolution.

If all "Superman" did was donate $20 a month to his favorite charity, then it would seem silly to think that the same guy is some sort of superpowered alien from the planet Krypton.

If only you were equating to to that. You are saying that God should help every single person in every single way up to and including the prevention of death. Anything less is unGodlike and proof of his non-existence.

And what's funny about all this is that it's believers who are the ones that initially propose God as the "superman". Y'all (general "y'all", not necessarily you specifically) are the ones saying he can create entire universes and every living thing with magic, and somehow track our eternal souls throughout eternity. Y'all are the ones saying he can somehow telepathically communicate with believers throughout the world. Y'all are the ones saying he can come back alive after being dead for 3 days. Y'all are the ones that throughout history have been explaining every unexplained occurrence with the magic of God. Y'all are the ones that throughout history have repeatedly mentioned how God is so awesome, and he loves us, and if we just followed him, everything would be better off.

If all if this is possible in the world of sci-fi, then why would it be a stretch from a religious standpoint? There are atheists that say any number of things are possible that are not (telepathy, warp drive, Big Bang (j/k sorta), time travel, even immortality). So why would it be more possible to accomplish these things without God than them being possible with God?

But as soon a nonbeliever asks to resolve some basic inconsistencies, they're being unreasonable and "wanting god to be superman" :lol And then people go and take regular nice human actions, and give god all the credit for them, but when a negative human action is brought up (or a negative action that hurt an innocent human), then divine oversight is mysteriously absent all of a sudden. It's all a very convenient story. Of course, that's why the current religions have been able to persist for so long

I've never said anyone was being unreasonable until they start saying what I believe (incorrectly) and then use that as the basis to prove their inconcistencies. Honestly, you haven't told me one yet that couldn't be explained if one did not already think they knew the answer.

 

[JGS]

I was talking about the punishment for not believing, not the suffering on Earth, but if we're going to go down this road again, then God created some very bad rules for feeding the poor. The world has never had the infrastructure for feeding every single person, even now. The world has a finite amount of resources. It doesn't matter who takes care of the child. Suffering has always been a product of time and place.

There was nothing bad about the rules for feeding the poor. It's a shame no one else has enacted them since money is involved.

The world has PLENTY of food. Anyone saying differently is very incorrect. There is enough food made in the US to feed most of the planet. The reason people are starving is entirely about money and politics which is why the infrastructure doesn't exists. No one wants it to.

If there was a shortage of food than even us fat Americans would be going hungry too instead of throwing away more food than everyone else in the world eats.

 

[JGS]

I was talking about the punishment for not believing, not the suffering on Earth, but if we're going to go down this road again, then God created some very bad rules for feeding the poor. The world has never had the infrastructure for feeding every single person, even now. The world has a finite amount of resources. It doesn't matter who takes care of the child. Suffering has always been a product of time and place.

I'll go down the big picture road too.

If the punishment for not believing is death, then how is that any different than what happens to you if you don't believe? :/

 

[soul creator]

It's always been that way. People with faith have plenty of proof, but proving it to others simply for debating purposes is a waste of time. It reminds me of Jodie Foster's character in contact being asked to prove she loved her father.

but once again, we're not talking about feelings and emotions like love. We're discussing an actual being that has done specific actions. Those are two entirely different things that are being conflated for some reason.

If you have "proof", then it wouldn't be dependent on "faith". The entire point of things like evidence is that one's personal feelings don't affect the outcome either way! And since we're discussing the existence of an actual god that's proposed by most people and religions, and not a "feeling in my heart" god (of course I can't discuss subjective personal feelings, that's why they're subjective personal feelings!), that's what I'm asking about. What methodology is used to determine when god is just a "feeling" and when god actually "does something".

Unless of course, you're agreeing with me that "god" is really just a subjective concept in people's heads, and not an actual separate being that exists independent of us.

It amazes me how there is only "either/or" options with people in here.

Well with certain things, "either/or" is the only thing that makes sense. Either god is a subjective concept in our heads, like feelings and emotions, or god is an actual separate being that exists independently of us. You seem to mix both together whenever it's convenient, and I've been trying to figure out what methodology is used to know which is which.

They're not lying at all, they just believe it. They can say whatever they want and it's not my place to verbally disagree with them when it has no impact on m one way or the other.

Fair enough. It is true that they may not think they're lying. But where the "either/or" comes in is if they are wrong or right. People can believe in false things, after all. So are they wrong, or right?

The "who am I to question their feelings!" viewpoint seems like a weird thing to bring up during a message board thread that supposedly is discussing whether something is factual or not. I'm not proposing that we run into churches and yell out how wrong everyone is. But there really are only two possible answers to the question "did the divine creator of the universe cure my cancer?". I'm not asking if someone "feels" the answer. I'm asking what is the answer. And I'm just trying to figure out how that answer is determined.

I've said this before, but the vast majority of scriptures tells you what's a metaphor/symbol/illustartion. You ignore nothing for fear of missing something.

At risk of getting to deep into scripture (since my general point isn't really tied to any specific religion), where does it say that for Noah's Flood?

Religion A & B should be thanking God. The answer lies in whatever holy text the religion is based on. I'm not going off opinion, I'm going off what is written. What is written indicates that when people were cured, it was clear. There was no mystery as to what transpired.

wait, but Religion A & B often make contradictory claims about god. How do we differentiate between them? Simply saying "everyone's right!" doesn't really answer anything. Well, it does answer things if you're claiming that gods are just subjective human concepts (which I agree with). But if we're discussing an actual god, that means somebody's probably wrong about god. After all, I'm sure you think thousands of other religions and gods are "wrong". I'm just trying to figure out how what makes one believe Fanciful Religious Claim A, compared to Fanciful Religious Claim B.

What is also made clear is that since God is the Creator, he is worthy of praise just on that basis alone.

To go back to the parental analogy that lots of believers use, should someone "praise" their deadbeat parents, just because they were created by them?

So every day we have life and every day we stay alive, we should be thankful. That sounds generic, but it also makes clear a thousand different ways we can show appreciation for our life.

But I don't understand this when it comes to god specifically. We live in a universe that is almost entirely "opposed" to human existence. Wouldn't it make sense to be thankful to be alive in spite of god, and not because of god?

If we agree on 99% of everything, then the remaining 1% should not have any bearing whatsoever unless someone is condemning the other because of it. If the poor are being taken care of, why does it matter that one person see's it as doing God's work - which would be true on his end?

My questions are with regards to religious claims. I am not making a statement either way about whether religion may be "useful" or not. I'm discussing whether the claims are true or false.

I'm not going to randomly scream at someone who's helping poor people because their god told them so. Good for them! But that has zero to do with whether their claims are true or false. Simply saying "well why does it matter?" is avoiding the entire intent of the discussion.

And this also ignores that there are people doing negative things and feel it's "god's work". I'm just curious how we determine what's really god's work and what isn't god's work.

1. FGM - It wasn't a Biblical practice which makes sense considering the damage caused even in this day and age. Male circumcision was only practiced by the Jews and done away with the beginning of Christianity.
2. Copyright law is tied to ownership. Ownership was a big thing in Bible times.
3. Gulf of Mexico is tied to both greed and ruining the earth, both addressed in scripture.

Ok. You could get similar (vague) lessons from any religious text. Or lots of self help books. Wouldn't be quite as poetic, but it's not something that strikes me as "only god could have imparted such knowledge!". Agree to disagree I guess.

I'm not sure why "Progressive Christians" would have a problem with the Flood account in terms of it flat out not happening considering that out of all the great mythologies out there, a great flood myth ties the majority of civilizations together.

I'm not sure I follow. I'm simply asking did the God of the bible send a flood to kill off all animals and humans except Noah and his family, and 2 of every animal, because they essentially disappointed him.

If these things didn't actually happen, how do you determine that?

He's certainly suffering now - out of grief. That's what happens when we lose loved ones. I suffered immensely when my grandmother died even though everyone knew she was going to die at a ripe old age and of natural causes.

sorry for your loss

Both you and I know that the suffering we were addressing had more to do with watching a kid starve when there is plenty of food to give him or the idea that it's a good idea to go to war at the cost of many civilian lives.

So unless you are saying that death is suffering and God should thus end death, you can't equate the two "sufferings" as equal.

Why have suffering in the first place? Once again, this is god, that falls under his control. If he doesn't actually want suffering, it doesn't have to exist. Just like human beings with flapping wings don't exist.

Believe it or not, religious folk believe death happens too. There are some parts of science we adhere to...

I suppose.

Again, you are misinterpretting what that means. You are coming up with your own relgious belief to provide a counter argument. I don't know all religions, but I will eat my hat if there is a major religion out there that thinks God protects us from all.

What do you think happens in heaven, if you believe in one? (heaven has been a popular belief in major religions for a long time now, obviously). If one thinks that no suffering is a possibility that happens in heaven, then the whole "god doesn't want to protect us from all" thing kind of goes out the window, doesn't it?

You are throwing out individual instances and then trying to apply them to religion in general which does not work. The proof is in what is said and written, not in what people's opinions are.

But if I actually looked at a holy book and always went along with "what's said and written", I'd probably be put in jail. Or looked at as a crazy person.

I created my kids but that doesn't mean I have the ability to take care of them all of their life even by chance occurrences. Of course, God's more powerful than I, and he could protect us from any manner of things, but then why should he be required to?

He's not "required" to do anything. But if he has the means to prevent suffering, and doesn't do it, that's not someone I look to as awesome and loving.

Once again, we give god more leeway than we give regular human beings. When some crime is happening that a bystander may or may not be able to stop, lots of people wonder why they didn't try to help. But when the "ultimate bystander", who would apparently is able to easily prevent these things, but doesn't do it, people just chalk it up as "why should he have to?"

It always strikes me as a weird authoritarian way of looking at things.

That's the part I don't get - especially if you don't worship him? Depending on the religion, there are any number of rewards that result in worshipping him depsite the risks &/or certainties of death we face.

So is this saying a big reason people believe in god is based on future rewards?

The problem is that atheists look at this life as all there is and don't understand why someone would worship someone as a result of this life.

So is this saying a big reason people believe in god is based on future rewards in another life.

I look at this life as all there is because evidence shows that this life is all there is.

How did some religious people figure out that there's an entirely separate life, apart from our normal ones? Once again, I'm not asking for "feelings" and "beliefs", because believers usually think gods, afterlives, and souls are actual things and not just subjective feelings.

Again, you're limiting the options. Another option would be that God is interested in people and wants to see how they live their life, especially since they spent their entire existence tryong to prove they could live without him. Further, it makes the ones who say they can't live without him all the more special.

So the divine creator of the entire universe, orchestrates 4 billion years of the Earth's existence, countless bacteria, viruses, creatures, plants...millions of years of animal evolution, and then hundreds of thousands of years of hominid evolution...just so it can result in a creature that tells him every Sunday that they love him so much?

alrighty.

That's not true at all. Religious people and their orginizations are far more giving. That can't even be disputed. Charity was indeed influenced by religion, not government or individual, even if non-believers don't do it for God themselves. I chalk it up to evolution.

I'm not asking whether belief in god motivates good actions, I'm asking if God motivates good actions. These are two entirely different things.

If only you were equating to to that. You are saying that God should help every single person in every single way up to and including the prevention of death. Anything less is unGodlike and proof of his non-existence.

Well it's not the sole indicator of non-existence. But it's one of them that tilts things in that direction. When Superman stops a moving train, I think "whoa, that's some Superman shit right there!". When Clark Kent has an argument with Lois Lane, I think "whoa, that's some regular everyday human shit right there!".

If all if this is possible in the world of sci-fi, then why would it be a stretch from a religious standpoint? There are atheists that say any number of things are possible that are not (telepathy, warp drive, Big Bang (j/k sorta), time travel, even immortality). So why would it be more possible to accomplish these things without God than them being possible with God?

I'm not sure I follow. Lots of crazy things are possible in the world of sci-fi. The fi stands for "fiction" after all. Unless you're saying religious people are good at coming up with fiction. Which will get no disagreement from me!

I've never said anyone was being unreasonable until they start saying what I believe (incorrectly) and then use that as the basis to prove their inconcistencies. Honestly, you haven't told me one yet that couldn't be explained if one did not already think they knew the answer.

Well that's the thing, and why I try (and sometimes fail) to not just make it about "you" specifically. Maybe you don't believe in a god that involves himself in human endeavors. Ok. Tons of people do. In fact, most people do. After all, the most popular religion, Christianity, claims that God became flesh and walked the Earth as a human being. Or something.

But once again, how does one determine that your god is the more accurate one, in comparison to say, the god of my mom (one that does regularly involve himself in the lives of humanity)?

If the only answer to that is "well, you have to believe it first before it's true!", then, well...you've pretty much proved my point :lol

 

[Slightly Live]

I'll go down the big picture road too.

If the punishment for not believing is death, then how is that any different than what happens to you if you don't believe? :/

Isn't the punishment for not believing more than death? Eternal suffering and damnation? Or does your flavour of religion say it's not that bad? Kind of hard to keep up with the many versions of Hell/post-death suffering that religions use these days.

 

[JGS]

Well that's the thing, and why I try (and sometimes fail) to not just make it about "you" specifically. Maybe you don't believe in a god that involves himself in human endeavors. Ok. Tons of people do. In fact, most people do. After all, the most popular religion, Christianity, claims that God became flesh and walked the Earth as a human being. Or something.

But once again, how does one determine that your god is the more accurate one, in comparison to say, the god of my mom (one that does regularly involve himself in the lives of humanity)?

If the only answer to that is "well, you have to believe it first before it's true!", then, well...you've pretty much proved my point :lol

Not enough time to answer it all, but this one gets to the matter. I never said the last sentence so I can't address it. However...

I also did not say God does not involve himself in human matters or that he doesn't have miraculous plans for humans. Not sure where you got that. I said I don't believe God performs unknown miracles which is an entirely different matter. When God does something miraculous you will know it and it won't be just to satisfy a curiosity like some magic trick. Miracles weren't that common even in Bible times, so no reason to think they would be on the increase.

That has nothing to do with the fact that God involves himself in the lives of people believing in him all the time. This does not mean he cures them of cancer or makes them millions of dollars, but he does make their lives better. If you base your life on physical proofs to make you happy, it makes sense you would be unhappy with God since you're looking for things not guarenteed.

I'm starting to think that some believe the very existence of God in one's life is somehow considered a miracle in and of itself. It is not. It's not a miracle that Giod exists. In fact, it's logical to think something out there is better than us since we know so little.

However, he has no reason to interact with/help ones who don't care for him, anymore than you should concern yourself with people that don't care for you.

Do you go around trying to prove things to people that don't like you? I sure don't.

 

[JGS]

Isn't the punishment for not believing more than death? Eternal suffering and damnation? Or does your flavour of religion say it's not that bad? Kind of hard to keep up with the many versions of Hell/post-death suffering that religions use these days.

You would have to show me where there is eternal damnation and suffering= punishment for sin. All indications are the wages sin pays is death. Of course, I don't want to die either...

 

[soul creator]

Not enough time to answer it all, but this one gets to the matter. I never said the last sentence so I can't address it. However...

I also did not say God does not involve himself in human matters or that he doesn't have miraculous plans for humans. Not sure where you got that.

Ok, so you do think God involves himself in human matters. How did you determine this (beyond "The Bible says so)?

I said I don't believe God performs unknown miracles which is an entirely different matter. When God does something miraculous you will know it and it won't be just to satisfy a curiosity like some magic trick. Miracles weren't that common even in Bible times, so no reason to think they would be on the increase.

You believe that God created the universe, correct? Considering we have no evidence of disembodied conscious beings creating universes, that seems pretty miraculous to me.

That has nothing to do with the fact that God involves himself in the lives of people believing in him all the time. This does not mean he cures them of cancer or makes them millions of dollars, but he does make their lives better.

How? What method does one use to determine that Person A's life was made better because of God, and Person B's life was made better because of some normal earthly factor?

It's very easy to just say "god makes people's lives better". Tons of religious people say that. I'm just wondering how it's determined. Once again, the question is not "does belief in god make someone's life better" but whether "god makes someone's life better".

If you base your life on physical proofs to make you happy, it makes sense you would be unhappy with God since you're looking for things not guarenteed.

This is really about "making me happy". I believe in things based on evidence because that's the most reliable way to make sense of the world, not because it gives me happy feelings.

Once again, my questions are concerning claims made about the world you and I both live in, and not personal subjective feelings or emotions. Historically, most people don't say "My belief in god inspired me to do X, and that's just like, my opinion man". People say "God did X". I'm just asking how was this determined that God did in fact do X.

You seem to be trying to turn me into the "mean old atheist" :lol , when I'm just asking straightforward questions. I'm actually trying to remove personal feelings from the discussion, because feelings tend to cloud the discussion when it comes to fact-based things.

I'm starting to think that some believe the very existence of God in one's life is somehow considered a miracle in and of itself. It is not. It's not a miracle that Giod exists. In fact, it's logical to think something out there is better than us since we know so little.

How is "better" than us defined? Sharks are "better than us" when it comes to living on the ocean. Monkeys are "better" at climbing trees. We are one of millions of different life forms on this planet, each with various strengths and weaknesses. Intelligence happens to be our strong point, but it's obviously not the only useful trait an animal can possess.

However, he has no reason to interact with/help ones who don't care for him, anymore than you should concern yourself with people that don't care for you.

Do you go around trying to prove things to people that don't like you? I sure don't.

This ignores the fact that plenty of current nonbelievers were raised within a religion (such as myself) and only stopped believing later in life due to never getting straightforward answers to obvious questions. So why didn't god talk to those people? Did they not care for him enough?

And of course, to go back to my earlier point, how do we determine that God has those feelings you claim he has? Some people believe that a God exists and it helps everyone, no matter what. Some people think a God exists, and doesn't care at all either way about human beings. There are also potentially thousands of different qualities assigned to a God. How does one determine the ones that accurately describes god, and which ones are just human beings projecting their own feelings?

 

[Slightly Live]

In fact, it's logical to think something out there is better than us since we know so little.

Wait, are you tying the existence or possability of God into the scale of the universe and the amount of human knowledge?

It's not logical to assume there is anything "better than us". Statistical likelihood points to the chances of other life existing or have existed some where else in the universe, nothing more, nothing less.

If you're invoking logic, would you care to explain how'd you'd come to that conclusion based on what you, I and everyone else knows logically?

However, he has no reason to interact with/help ones who don't care for him, anymore than you should concern yourself with people that don't care for you.

Do you go around trying to prove things to people that don't like you? I sure don't.

So what happened to the all-caring, all-loving God that loves all his children equally, regardless of their sins or what they think or do? Again, I find it hard to keep up with the branching positions various Christians take in regards to God's position on this issue. Coming from a Christian background myself I assumed God was all loving and it is humans that turn away from him if they choose.

You're saying God doesn't love people equally? He loves the ones that believe in him more? If he loves everyone equally, wouldn't he help everyone equally? So by choosing to help only those that believe in him, he stops loving the non-believers? Or does his love for them just drop to a slightly lower level? Enough to keep loving them but not enough to help them out like he would do with those that believe in him?

See, you are giving me the impression you see God as having certain specific qualities.

he has no reason to interact with/help ones who don't care for him

This runs counter to what I was taught, what a lot of people I've met believed. It runs counter to what many of the churches I attended to taught.

God, according Christianity, is supposed to be all loving, all caring, but selecting people to help based on their level of belief seems... wrong. Petty. Surely a supernatural being is beyond such childish selective actions.

The way you're painting this picture to me, it seems like you're saying God will only help those that believe in him. He'll give them additional help that he refuses to give to non-believers. Almost as if supernatural assistance is is held at ransom, pay the price - belief, and you'll be eligible. Not that it's a guarantee either. You can all the faith and belief in the world but there's a line that God draws, he'll help you a certain bit, in a certain way and then you are on your own. Fend for yourself. He won't stop accidents. He won't interfere in any measurable way though. But to stand a chance of getting any help, you need to believe.

 

[LCGeek]

This ignores the fact that plenty of current nonbelievers were raised within a religion (such as myself) and only stopped believing later in life due to never getting straightforward answers to obvious questions. So why didn't god talk to those people? Did they not care for him enough?

And of course, to go back to my earlier point, how do we determine that God has those feelings you claim he has? Some people believe that a God exists and it helps everyone, no matter what. Some people think a God exists, and doesn't care at all either way about human beings. There are also potentially thousands of different qualities assigned to a God. How does one determine the ones that accurately describes god, and which ones are just human beings projecting their own feelings?

Experience is a good way to determine the truth of god. Look at the commandments and how they are obeyed and what has happened as a result of not following such rules. Even if we were focus on a few of them it's quite clear how we can determine such a god wanted to avoid behavior or the consequences of them in certain ways. Some gods are destructive with clear guidelines on how to achieve it, think they are disappointed at how the species has served them?

Thousands of different qualities assigned to the all encompassing god check your scale bro when it comes to infinity no finite number or scale will do. You ask how we determine what feelings are god's if we are all a part of and derived of god does it really need to be questioned in such a manner? Rather if I was being logical or objective removing any possibility or qualities we can assign to god would skew the true nature of a god that is all encompassing. We are finite being presuming how a being of a whole or all encompassing nature works after we are the output seems just a little above my pay grade in the ego required to go presuming how that being works let alone the various dynamics involved. Sure I can guess but it doesn't erase the fact I or no other human being have no way of relating to it at the level you required for your example and anyone who does so should be highly suspect.

Religion is not a automatic passport to god, which nonbelievers themselves should know quite well. If you truly want god find the deity for yourself and know why otherwise all else is pointless. Don't throw pearls to pig is something that goes overlooked in my view. Screw religion look at science alone and see how true that phrase is.

 

[JGS]

Wait, are you tying the existence or possability of God into the scale of the universe and the amount of human knowledge?

It's not logical to assume there is anything "better than us". Statistical likelihood points to the chances of other life existing or have existed some where else in the universe, nothing more, nothing less.

If you're invoking logic, would you care to explain how'd you'd come to that conclusion based on what you, I and everyone else knows logically?

No.

I am saying there is no reason to think we are all there is or that we are the pinnacle of knowledge and wisdom. There's a difference.

So what happened to the all-caring, all-loving God that loves all his children equally, regardless of their sins or what they think or do? Again, I find it hard to keep up with the branching positions various Christians take in regards to God's position on this issue. Coming from a Christian background myself I assumed God was all loving and it is humans that turn away from him if they choose.

Addressed before, but he loves everyone equally by the opportunity he gives. No one is not invited to worship him. If they decide they don't want the Privilege, why would he help them especially if they believe completey opposite of his expectations. No part of civilization believes this so why would the expectation be that their creator would?

You're saying God doesn't love people equally? He loves the ones that believe in him more? If he loves everyone equally, wouldn't he help everyone equally? So by choosing to help only those that believe in him, he stops loving the non-believers? Or does his love for them just drop to a slightly lower level? Enough to keep loving them but not enough to help them out like he would do with those that believe in him?

You assume too much of what I said. I answered in my previous paragraph. Love and help are two completely different things are they not? I may love a drug addicted son, that doesn't mean I'll keep assisting him in the addiction. The choices people make help determine what they receive from God. This is not a foreign concept. I am not a religious scholar as I don't care what the bulk of other religions teach. However, if they teach that God loves/blesses/saves everyone regardless of their faith/animosity toward him- they are wrong or using their own books to come to those conclusions. There's no where in the Scriptures that indicate that except in the context of opportunity.

At this point it would be nice to have some references to the contrary if I'm wrong on that.

See, you are giving me the impression you see God as having certain specific qualities.

God has specific qualities and also lack specific qualities.

This runs counter to what I was taught, what a lot of people I've met believed. It runs counter to what many of the churches I attended to taught.

It's possible you may have been taught wrong. The largest religious group in the world does a lot of things wrong from a scriptural standpoint imo, so size does not matter when discussing religion.

God, according Christianity, is supposed to be all loving, all caring, but selecting people to help based on their level of belief seems... wrong. Petty. Surely a supernatural being is beyond such childish selective actions.

Again, already addressed in a previous paragraph, but i disagree. It is perfectly natural to:
1. Help the ones wanting help. This includes non-believers interested in wanting to believe.
2. Not helping those who hate/attack you and your followers. On a grand scale, that's normally known as war.:lol

What is completely unnatural to us humans but God still does is open up the opportunity to be blessed/helped/aided by him even if you are currently an enemy of his. That's whacky stuff from my perspective, but that's what he wants.

The way you're painting this picture to me, it seems like you're saying God will only help those that believe in him. He'll give them additional help that he refuses to give to non-believers. Almost as if supernatural assistance is is held at ransom, pay the price - belief, and you'll be eligible. Not that it's a guarantee either. You can all the faith and belief in the world but there's a line that God draws, he'll help you a certain bit, in a certain way and then you are on your own. Fend for yourself. He won't stop accidents. He won't interfere in any measurable way though. But to stand a chance of getting any help, you need to believe.

You've repeated this a few times and again you are wrong. You are spending more time interpretting what I said than what I actually said. It's like an anti-synopsis. As a result, you get it wrong.

I say that God helps those who believe in him. This is his primary goal. Growth in worshippers is good, but helping the faithful endure is better and also helps in growth.

I also say there is no reason to help those against him. I guess I should put "actively" in there, but I had no idea this would be that confusing of a concept for people who have claimed to read the Bible- especially with all it's inconsistencies.

I say non-believers will get help from him if they are interested. As it is, they are content as they are.

 

[soul creator]

I am not a religious scholar as I don't care what the bulk of other religions teach

But those religions may very well describe the world more accurately then yours! Well, assuming you're interested in accurately describing the world around us, and don't just see religion as a personal motivating factor.

Of course, it's perfectly fine if you do see religion as just a personal motivating factor! Like I always mention, no one can take away one's personal, subjective feelings on a topic. If someone's religious belief makes them feel better, I can't "debate" that. But that's precisely why I'm trying to limit this specific discussion to religious claims and not personal religious feelings.

It's possible you may have been taught wrong. The largest religious group in the world does a lot of things wrong from a scriptural standpoint imo, so size does not matter when discussing religion.

I'm still not sure if it's been explained how does one differ between a "wrong" teaching of the bible and a "right" teaching of the bible. And obviously even further than that, how does one determine that Religion A's claims are "wrong" and Religion B's claims are "right". I'm sure there are thousands of religions and gods you think are "wrong", so I'm just simply asking how did you determine that, in comparison to your specific version of God and religion. What makes yours (or any individual's) stand out, beyond just your personal feelings on the matter? What process allows you to say "Supernatural event A happened, but Supernatural event B is just a made up story". By invoking "supernatural" into the equation, we're obviously throwing out normal methods of natural evidence and reason. So what do religious people use to evaluate these claims?

Remember, we're not talking about personal feelings!

You may say "based on scripture" and "my faith tells me so", but everyone says that. Where is the "neutral third party" that allows you to determine one claim is "true" and another claim to is "false"?

 

[Mario]

No one is not invited to worship him.

Except for those who have never heard the "word of God".

How do you reconcile for those who have been beyond the physical reach of preaching and the Bible, past and present?

 

[JGS]

Except for those who have never heard the "word of God".

How do you reconcile for those who have been beyond the physical reach of preaching and the Bible, past and present?

Who said ones that never heard the word of God were judged (EDIT: adversely) for it?

I've said many times that we should nt assume anything when it comes to judgment because we aren't the judges.

See how easy that is to reconcile.

EDIT: Additional reconciliation and Biblical answer is that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous which would indicate that at least some who have not heard about God get an opportunity to learn about him.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Except for those who have never heard the "word of God".

How do you reconcile for those who have been beyond the physical reach of preaching and the Bible, past and present?

One interesting theory is that, God--being omniscient--knew who would respond positively and who negatively to the gospel. Thus, He arranged it so that those who would never hear the gospel were those who would have rejected it anyway.

Alternatively, it could be that God interacts with those cultures with whom Christianity has never had contact in a different way. Indeed, the Bible teaches that "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20). And, again, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Ps. 19:1-4).

Another, perhaps more disturbing, alternative, is that those who never have an opportunity to hear will be judged just like everyone else. God's means of reaching those people is Christians going to those places and teaching the gospel. Thus, any failure of a group to ever hear of the Gospel is a failure of the Church, and this should motivate Christians to "go and make disciples of all nations." (Matt. 28:18).

Finally, maybe God will cut those who have never heard some slack, and give them an opportunity to repent of their sins and accept His grace.

The main point to realize is that we don't know for certain. As JGS said, we aren't the judges. But if God is just, which Christians believe, then whatever the outcome is, it will be just. What more can you ask for?

 

[Mgoblue201]

There was nothing bad about the rules for feeding the poor. It's a shame no one else has enacted them since money is involved.

The world has PLENTY of food. Anyone saying differently is very incorrect. There is enough food made in the US to feed most of the planet. The reason people are starving is entirely about money and politics which is why the infrastructure doesn't exists. No one wants it to.

If there was a shortage of food than even us fat Americans would be going hungry too instead of throwing away more food than everyone else in the world eats.

Who says I'm talking about now? For most of the history of human civilization, the ability to eat was completely contingent on factors external to themselves. There was no such thing as a guaranteed food source.

And even if I am talking about now, that's not any better. It's not like people who are starving have any choice in the matter. There is no good reason why my ability to eat should depend upon my chance birth in a country where food is readily supplied. Getting food to people isn't a matter of simply willing it either. I have an easy access to food because I buy it. I buy it because I have the money. I have the money because I have acess to a good job. By that point it has nothing to do with good or evil. It's about complex economic theory, which is social order. It's just so far removed from any attempt by morality to slot the question of suffering into a theological framework. I think that God could do better than leaving it up to that. Why should anyone's abilty to eat food depend on whether the stock market is up today?

I'm really not sure what you mean by your second post. If I don't believe, then it's the same punishment as not believing? Huh? Anyway, since this is basically the last argument repackaged, I might as well link to the post of mine that was never answered.

One interesting theory is that, God--being omniscient--knew who would respond positively and who negatively to the gospel. Thus, He arranged it so that those who would never hear the gospel were those who would have rejected it anyway.

Alternatively, it could be that God interacts with those cultures with whom Christianity has never had contact in a different way. Indeed, the Bible teaches that "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20). And, again, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Ps. 19:1-4).

Another, perhaps more disturbing, alternative, is that those who never have an opportunity to hear will be judged just like everyone else. God's means of reaching those people is Christians going to those places and teaching the gospel. Thus, any failure of a group to ever hear of the Gospel is a failure of the Church, and this should motivate Christians to "go and make disciples of all nations." (Matt. 28:18).

Finally, maybe God will cut those who have never heard some slack, and give them an opportunity to repent of their sins and accept His grace.

The main point to realize is that we don't know for certain. As JGS said, we aren't the judges. But if God is just, which Christians believe, then whatever the outcome is, it will be just. What more can you ask for?

That just sounds like an attempt to reconcile a seemingly random universe with a God who acts seemingly randomly. And if the acts of God are indistinguishable from the random background noise of the universe, then there is no positive proof of God acting in the world. How, then, am I expected to believe?

On the other hand, religious distribution is exactly as what we would expect in a random universe. If you are born in Iraq, you are overwhelmingly likely to be a Muslim. Billy Graham would probably be teaching the Koran right now if he had been born in a Muslim country. That's the sheer likelihood of statistics. Does God think that most people in the Middle East are going to reject him? No, it's just that the human mind is impressionable and often builds preconcieved notions from birth. Our minds are naturally bent, not theologically bent. Furthermore, there is also no proof that God ever had contact with certain cultures before missionaries arrived.

Your fourth paragraph is, once again, pure apologetics, an attempt to account for a discrepancy and then appeal to a mysterious power to hide any faults in that reasoning. What kind of God would demand belief and then create a world in which a chance to believe is often shrouded? Why not just offer everybody a sober choice? It makes more sense to reason that people aren't given the choice because there is no choice. I only come in contact with a certain religion because of happenstance, because I was born in 20th century America and not 4th century America.

 

[Mario]

Who said ones that never heard the word of God were judged (EDIT: adversely) for it?

I've said many times that we should nt assume anything when it comes to judgment because we aren't the judges.

I grant you may not have personally said those who have not heard the word of God would be judged, but that is the position of some branches of Christianity.

See how easy that is to reconcile.

Perhaps in your mind. But before your edit, all you effectively said was "God moves in mysterious ways".

EDIT: Additional reconciliation and Biblical answer is that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous which would indicate that at least some who have not heard about God get an opportunity to learn about him.

Great.

But why wait? Why would God not reach out to those people as soon as possible allowing the opportunity for the message of God to be beneficial during their actual lives?

The main point to realize is that we don't know for certain. As JGS said, we aren't the judges. But if God is just, which Christians believe, then whatever the outcome is, it will be just. What more can you ask for?

If you believe that God is just, but don't know for certain, the the "more" you could ask for is a clear and unambiguous insight into the nature of that God. For all any Christian knows, everybody is damned after death, or only the most villanous, or nobody is regardless of how they spent their earthly time.


Taking a step back towards the original thread of conversation, assuming God is just and willing to give those who have not heard His word a "free pass", then should he not also be willing to do so for those who have heard His word but who have been born into another religion, or otherwise confused, misled, or skeptical because of the existance of many religions, religious texts, no direct experience with God, and no evidence for the truth of any of them? Where do you draw the line?

Some Christian faiths might believe God would be accepting in such circumstances. As far as I know, most Christian faiths believe He would not.


Further, if the answer is "we don't know", even if we had confirmation of the existance of God, is He worthy of worship when his actions and intent are ambiguous and incomprehensible to humans?

 

[astroturfing]

i have a couple of questions to religious folk, especially to Christians, that might seem humorous, or like im trying to make fun of religion, but honestly i think these are very interesting little questions to ponder.

so, let's say Christianity is true, and the world will end as according to God's plan. Jesus descends back to the Earth and so on.

what happens to people who are in space at that moment? what if there are some astronauts on a Mars mission, will Jesus stop by Mars just for them? i mean seriously, how does the Bible fit with this..?

also, another space-themed question; we know for a fact that our galaxy the Milky Way is colliding with the Andromeda galaxy and that the process will take billions of years to complete. so, if God created the universe and both of these galaxies, why did "he" also make it seem that these galaxies will collide? because if the Bible is true, they really can't finish colliding (or merging rather), it would take far too long, the end of the world on Earth must come sooner than in a few billion years. (our Sun will scorch the Earth and humans long before the galaxies have completed the merging process). or will God/Jesus come back to "end the world" only on this one tiny planet in this insignificant solar system, and leave everything else in this grand universe as it is? seems extremely weird to me if thats the case.

looking at the universe and the processes going on, it looks INCREDIBLY obvious that our reality will continue to go on for billions and billions of years even long after humanity has been wiped out. so why does God's design seem like that? is God purposefully fooling a lot of people into thinking that humans aren't the main focus of creation (which would go against the Bible)?

 

[JGS]

I grant you may not have personally said those who have not heard the word of God would be judged, but that is the position of some branches of Christianity.

Well, I never said I could/would/should speak for all of Christendom.

Perhaps in your mind. But before your edit, all you effectively said was "God moves in mysterious ways".

No I didn't I said we don't judge. God judging as he sees fit is not mysterious at all.

Great.

But why wait? Why would God not reach out to those people as soon as possible allowing the opportunity for the message of God to be beneficial during their actual lives?

Who said he didn't?

- Maybe their parents wouldn't let them. Maybe their country mandated they be taught a particular religion or any number of other reasons.

- Why would it matter when they get the opportunity IF they get the opportunity?

- This would still have to take place for all the ones who died prior to Christanity (per my beliefs).

If you believe that God is just, but don't know for certain, the the "more" you could ask for is a clear and unambiguous insight into the nature of that God. For all any Christian knows, everybody is damned after death, or only the most villanous, or nobody is regardless of how they spent their earthly time.

This isn't true because neither what happens at death nor how God judges isn't a mystery.

Taking a step back towards the original thread of conversation, assuming God is just and willing to give those who have not heard His word a "free pass", then should he not also be willing to do so for those who have heard His word but who have been born into another religion, or otherwise confused, misled, or skeptical because of the existance of many religions, religious texts, no direct experience with God, and no evidence for the truth of any of them? Where do you draw the line?

Again, who says he doesn't?

However, direct experience with God is not necessary so it's a weak excuse. Most of the people in the Bible did not have a direct experience with God. If you don't beieve after something is explained than that's the risk you take.

Another thing to note is that the ignorant are not given a "free pass"- just an opportunity to make a decision which they never had.

Further, if the answer is "we don't know", even if we had confirmation of the existance of God, is He worthy of worship when his actions and intent are ambiguous and incomprehensible to humans?

God is worthy of worship based solely on what he's already done. It's the height of arrogance to think he "owes" us more. I know that even when I die, I've lived a pretty good life. Hoepfully, you think that too. So if I believe God is the Creator, then why should I not be thankful about that. If you don't then you don't have to thank him for anything. You shouldn't expect more than that either.

 

[Metaphoreus]

And if the acts of God are indistinguishable from the random background noise of the universe, then there is no positive proof of God acting in the world. How, then, am I expected to believe?

I didn't suggest those possibilities as proof of God acting in the world. I was responding to the question, "How do you reconcile for those who have been beyond the physical reach of preaching and the Bible, past and present?"

On the other hand, religious distribution is exactly as what we would expect in a random universe. If you are born in Iraq, you are overwhelmingly likely to be a Muslim.

That doesn't seem random at all. It seems quite logical, in fact. But it's beside the point. I am not asserting the above possibilities to try to demonstrate that God exists. I'm demonstrating that the fact that not everyone has heard the gospel is not a reason to believe that God does not exist.

Does God think that most people in the Middle East are going to reject him? No

I don't know that and you don't know that. In fact, assuming that the first possibility I proposed is true--and assuming that most people in the Middle East have never heard the gospel, such that they are part of the class of persons we are discussing--then the answer would necessarily be yes.

Furthermore, there is also no proof that God ever had contact with certain cultures before missionaries arrived.

Well, I don't have any, so I won't contradict you, except to say that it is plausible--assuming God exists, natch--that God can deal with each of those individuals at the time of their death, and thereby have contact with those cultures in that way. That would also be a way that we would have no record of. So you don't get confused, I'm not arguing that the fact we have no record of that is evidence of it. That would be stupid.

What kind of God would demand belief and then create a world in which a chance to believe is often shrouded?

God doesn't demand belief. You could always live a perfect life and then claim your place with God as a matter of right. You won't, but you could. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is, I suggest, a universal human understanding. We differ on what constitutes right and wrong, but we do not differ on choosing to do that which we believe is wrong. Therefore, I imagine that all humans are culpable for the wrong that they have knowingly committed, by whatever standard they have chosen to live by. As such, when faced with a judge who requires that your every choice has been right, all will stand condemned by their own conscience, without even resorting to a Law that they could never have encountered. Since they are justly condemned then, who can complain about such condemnation? Salvation through Christ is not a matter of right, but a gift of God. God doesn't demand belief, but faith in Christ's atonement is the only way to avoid a just condemnation.

If you believe that God is just, but don't know for certain, the the "more" you could ask for is a clear and unambiguous insight into the nature of that God. For all any Christian knows, everybody is damned after death, or only the most villanous, or nobody is regardless of how they spent their earthly time. . . . Further, if the answer is "we don't know", even if we had confirmation of the existance of God, is He worthy of worship when his actions and intent are ambiguous and incomprehensible to humans?

By "which Christians believe," I mean "which Christians know for certain." If we can't answer your questions of what God does with those who have never heard the gospel, it isn't because we aren't certain that God is just; it's because we are too ignorant to know what justice would require in that situation. Thus, the question of whether He is worthy of worship on that basis is not even implicated. As I said, we are certain He is just, and thus worthy of worship on the basis of His justness, but we don't know what justice requires.

assuming God is just and willing to give those who have not heard His word a "free pass", then should he not also be willing to do so for those who have heard His word but who have been born into another religion, or otherwise confused, misled, or skeptical because of the existance of many religions, religious texts, no direct experience with God, and no evidence for the truth of any of them? Where do you draw the line?

I think that's a fair criticism of the fourth option I presented. I can't think of a response to it off the top of my head.

On a lighter note, your posts will take up less space if you don't enter a blank line between quoted text and normal text.

so, if God created the universe and both of these galaxies, why did "he" also make it seem that these galaxies will collide?

That is a weird question. It implies that, having set something in motion, God must permit it to proceed to completion. But that doesn't seem to follow at all.

or will God/Jesus come back to "end the world" only on this one tiny planet in this insignificant solar system, and leave everything else in this grand universe as it is? seems extremely weird for me if thats the case.

The Bible makes clear that the universe will be, essentially, destroyed and resurrected: "The present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. . . . The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare." (2 Pet. 3:7, 10). This universe will be replaced by "a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away." (Rev. 21:1).

is God purposefully fooling a lot of people into thinking that humans aren't the main focus of creation (which would go against the Bible)?

This is a fascinating question. It reminds of how, in threads concerning the expanse of space, people will often conclude that humans must be insignificant in the universe--just random fleas on a random speck of dust in a meaningless but beautiful expanse. The ancient Israelite king and psalmist David also considered the expansiveness of heaven, and saw man's place in it as reason to praise God: "When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? . . . O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!" (Ps. 8: 3-4; 9). In other words, he was experiencing that same sensation of smallness and insignificance, yet interpreted it differently than those who do not believe in God today. I've always found these reactions interesting.

 

[JGS]

i have a couple of questions to religious folk, especially to Christians, that might seem humorous, or like im trying to make fun of religion, but honestly i think these are very interesting little questions to ponder.

so, let's say Christianity is true, and the world will end as according to God's plan. Jesus descends back to the Earth and so on.

what happens to people who are in space at that moment? what if there are some astronauts on a Mars mission, will Jesus stop by Mars just for them? i mean seriously, how does the Bible fit with this..?

also, another space-themed question; we know for a fact that our galaxy the Milky Way is colliding with the Andromeda galaxy and that the process will take billions of years to complete. so, if God created the universe and both of these galaxies, why did "he" also make it seem that these galaxies will collide? because if the Bible is true, they really can't finish colliding (or merging rather), it would take far too long, the end of the world on Earth must come sooner than in a few billion years. (our Sun will scorch the Earth and humans long before the galaxies have completed the merging process). or will God/Jesus come back to "end the world" only on this one tiny planet in this insignificant solar system, and leave everything else in this grand universe as it is? seems extremely weird to me if thats the case.

looking at the universe and the processes going on, it looks INCREDIBLY obvious that our reality will continue to go on for billions and billions of years even long after humanity has been wiped out. so why does God's design seem like that? is God purposefully fooling a lot of people into thinking that humans aren't the main focus of creation (which would go against the Bible)?

1. The world's not going to end, but let's say that the astronauts are evil and were supposed to die per judgement. There really isn't much to be done with them. Mars is a hop, skip, & jump away so one could go there and smite them or just let them hang out up there until they die of natural causes since they would have no impact on whoever is left on earth.

2. No one knows. Mankind botched up existence so badly that that's still being worked on. Not much point worrying about a few billion years.

However, there's a few possibilities:

- God could prevent the collision.

- The collision could happen and have no impact on Earth whatsoever. It's not like a car crash and there would still be light years of space between each star. Earth could just be a part of the Adromilkywada Galaxy.

- We may never have been meant to stay on Earth for an eternity, perhaps seeding other planets over billions of years.

That's all I got this late at night.

 

[jdogmoney]

As I said, we are certain He is just, and thus worthy of worship on the basis of His justness, but we don't know what justice requires.

How is this even conceptually possible?

 

[Mgoblue201]

I didn't suggest those possibilities as proof of God acting in the world. I was responding to the question, "How do you reconcile for those who have been beyond the physical reach of preaching and the Bible, past and present?"

That doesn't seem random at all. It seems quite logical, in fact. But it's beside the point. I am not asserting the above possibilities to try to demonstrate that God exists. I'm demonstrating that the fact that not everyone has heard the gospel is not a reason to believe that God does not exist.

I realize that you're not using this as proof of God. But that's the corollary. If God's actions and characteristics cannot be seen in the world, then it is reasonable to conclude that he does not exist. Even the prophecy of the Bible is a function of God acting within the natural world. However, it's not possible to test spiritual claims except to compare them to reality. For example, if God really does speak to people, then I can reasonably conclude that people should know things that they ordinarily cannot know. Pre-Colombus Native Americans spontaneously converting would be powerful proof. A consistent demonstration of this would be remarkable.

And by random I didn't mean that belief is randomly distributed. I mean that a person being born into an area is random.

I don't know that andd you don't know that. In fact, assuming that the first possibility I proposed is true--and assuming that most people in the Middle East have never heard the gospel, such that they are part of the class of persons we are discussing--then the answer would necessarily be yes.

That doesn't make any sense though. People are people. If everybody could be removed from environmental factors and the totality of experiences, then there is no reason why one region should prefer puppy dogs and another region kitty cats. Or black/white, burgers/ramen, soccer/football. These are cultural contingencies. And if God is rejecting people because of culture, then that's a very shoddy line of reasoning.

Well, I don't have any, so I won't contradict you, except to say that it is plausible--assuming God exists, natch--that God can deal with each of those individuals at the time of their death, and thereby have contact with those cultures in that way. That would also be a way that we would have no record of. So you don't get confused, I'm not arguing that the fact we have no record of that is evidence of it. That would be stupid.

In other words, the idea is completely unaccountable. It could be true, it could be an excuse. Given probability, it is the latter. The real reason it is an excuse, however, is because it just doesn't make any sense why everyone wouldn't receive the same choice, which I will get to below.

God doesn't demand belief. You could always live a perfect life and then claim your place with God as a matter of right. You won't, but you could. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is, I suggest, a universal human understanding. We differ on what constitutes right and wrong, but we do not differ on choosing to do that which we believe is wrong. Therefore, I imagine that all humans are culpable for the wrong that they have knowingly committed, by whatever standard they have chosen to live by. As such, when faced with a judge who requires that your every choice has been right, all will stand condemned by their own conscience, without even resorting to a Law that they could never have encountered. Since they are justly condemned then, who can complain about such condemnation? Salvation through Christ is not a matter of right, but a gift of God. God doesn't demand belief, but faith in Christ's atonement is the only way to avoid a just condemnation.

Christians always frame belief as a choice, but that's exactly the opposite of what it is. You're born with sin completely independent of any real choice you made, and then you must do one thing to get into heaven. But we're just playing semantics with the word "demand", which completely avoids the real argument here: if acceptance of belief is an important part of salvation, then why are there so many hurdles to belief? Why can't God inform every single person about the truth? Why is the human brain so prone to delusion and even worse, often unable to recognize that it is deluded? Why do events come along that abolish our ability to choose? None of it makes sense in the context of Christianity.

It's just so unbelievable that the Christian God who supposedly performed miracles and predicted the future can't actually be bothered to tell people about his master plan - the reason that we are all here - and instead leave it up to a total quirk of fate. Oh yeah, but he makes up for his mistakes after death, only this can't be proven. That is why it's an argument against God. No God would ever leave something so incredibly simple to chance and then actually make it look like chance.

It is no surprise at all that people who are born into a Christian culture by and large interpret events through that Christian lens. Most Christians are adament that God works continuously in their lives on a daily basis. Yet in another culture it's another God. Am I really supposed to believe that God would work in one area that is already predominently Christian yet do nothing for a bunch of people who believe in pagan Gods and need the truth most of all? What possible use is religion if events can be ascribed to two totally different entities? Religion is nothing more than interpreting the world through dogma. But chance has always been the better explanation. It even explains why on a macro scale some people believe one thing and other people believe something different. Religion ceases to make sense when it attempts to explain these chance events away.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Again, great work, all. I don't have the time to fight for the conservative Lutheran side, as I said, but there's some high-level thinking here. Fun reading.

 

[jdogmoney]

I rather wish we had more religious discussion than just the Abrahamic religions...like, it's been almost entirely Christian and Islam based in here. Where are the Shintoists, that's what I wanna know.

 

[DanteFox]

They'll pop up once Richard Dawkins and Bill Mahers start making documentaries about them.

 

[LCGeek]

i have a couple of questions to religious folk, especially to Christians, that might seem humorous, or like im trying to make fun of religion, but honestly i think these are very interesting little questions to ponder.

so, let's say Christianity is true, and the world will end as according to God's plan. Jesus descends back to the Earth and so on.

what happens to people who are in space at that moment? what if there are some astronauts on a Mars mission, will Jesus stop by Mars just for them? i mean seriously, how does the Bible fit with this..?

also, another space-themed question; we know for a fact that our galaxy the Milky Way is colliding with the Andromeda galaxy and that the process will take billions of years to complete. so, if God created the universe and both of these galaxies, why did "he" also make it seem that these galaxies will collide? because if the Bible is true, they really can't finish colliding (or merging rather), it would take far too long, the end of the world on Earth must come sooner than in a few billion years. (our Sun will scorch the Earth and humans long before the galaxies have completed the merging process). or will God/Jesus come back to "end the world" only on this one tiny planet in this insignificant solar system, and leave everything else in this grand universe as it is? seems extremely weird to me if thats the case.

looking at the universe and the processes going on, it looks INCREDIBLY obvious that our reality will continue to go on for billions and billions of years even long after humanity has been wiped out. so why does God's design seem like that? is God purposefully fooling a lot of people into thinking that humans aren't the main focus of creation (which would go against the Bible)?

The book of revelation is a bit of an allegory. I mean they have a fuckin dragon and on top 4 horsemen which theology never agrees on the right interpretation. Funny people talk rapture yet the word is only mentioned a few times ever in the bible. 7 signs of prophecies that can only seek to self fulfill. Don't even get me started on son of perdition and the beast bs that reeks of nwo conspiracy. Come on this is objectively what someone has to buy in to for the end times to happen like that. The world kings fall to final kingdom and this is after massive global battles. The king pretends to benevolent to all only to go two faced and basically start marking us if we serve him and killing us if we don't, jeez doesn't sound familiar? Straight up dan brown couldn't write the shit people say from the final book of the bible and what it could mean. IF you believe in that christian god your new earth and heaven aren't in this realm it's in his.

 

[Shanadeus]

I rather wish we had more religious discussion than just the Abrahamic religions...like, it's been almost entirely Christian and Islam based in here. Where are the Shintoists, that's what I wanna know.

Do shintoists claim falsehoods about sperm?

 

[astroturfing]

1. The world's not going to end, but let's say that the astronauts are evil and were supposed to die per judgement. There really isn't much to be done with them. Mars is a hop, skip, & jump away so one could go there and smite them or just let them hang out up there until they die of natural causes since they would have no impact on whoever is left on earth.

2. No one knows. Mankind botched up existence so badly that that's still being worked on. Not much point worrying about a few billion years.

However, there's a few possibilities:

- God could prevent the collision.

- The collision could happen and have no impact on Earth whatsoever. It's not like a car crash and there would still be light years of space between each star. Earth could just be a part of the Adromilkywada Galaxy.

- We may never have been meant to stay on Earth for an eternity, perhaps seeding other planets over billions of years.

That's all I got this late at night.

according to Christianity the world ISN'T going to end? well that's news to me... i always thought the consensus among Christians is that the Bible teaches the whole world will end, all of existance will stop when Judgement Day comes. but i guess not? i dont understand at all.. if the world is created for us humans like the Bible says (dont tell me this is inaccurate too!?), why would only humans be erased in the end by Jesus/God, but the rest of the universe left just hanging there meaninglessly? makes no sense IMO. the Earth and humans aren't even a spec of dust in the whole cosmos, if God just erases us and the planet... that isn't exactly a very spectacular "Armageddon", heh.

also, yes i know the Earth wouldnt be destroyed in the Milky Way/Andromeda merger... that wasnt my point, my point is that Earth WILL be destroyed before the merging is complete. because the Sun will scorch this place with no way to avoid it. so why would God create the galaxies so that it seems to us that they will merge? it's as if the universe will go on even without humanity... and that to me seems contrary to what the Bible teaches, and what most Christians believe. so either most Christians are wrong about their idea of how the world will end, OR their God is a prankster trying to fool scientists.

and about the astronauts... what if one of them on Mars isn't "evil"? would Jesus fly there to pick the non-evil person up and leave the others there to rot? such a silly scenario lol.

 

[astroturfing]

One interesting theory is that, God--being omniscient--knew who would respond positively and who negatively to the gospel. Thus, He arranged it so that those who would never hear the gospel were those who would have rejected it anyway.

this kind of idea disturbs me deeply.. i have to respond somehow.

think about it, if this idea you present was true, it would literally mean that God created some people JUST so they could be punished with eternal torture. if it was predetermined, if God knew beforehand who he would throw into hell and who would get to heaven... that would effectively mean those people didn't have a choice. they exist merely to be punished and tortured in the most extreme way (Hell).

what's worse than that? i can't think of anything! absolutely horrifying idea, and a god like that would certainly not deserve any praise from anyone but sadists. just disgusting! and i'm shocked anyone would entertain such ideas this far into our cultural evolution..