...and now for something completely different: Free Will!

[dybmh]

What is that process?

It's called Gehinnom. Here's a link that describes it better than I can: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm

And does it differ depending on what they had done and how much?

Yes

And why does a serial child murderer even get their "soul cleansed" at all?

In my belief, the part of the person who is a serial murderer is removed when the soul is cleansed. What's left is something pure and holy.

That sounds like "the Nuremberg Defence". It is irrelevant if the soldiers do not know the overall strategy of the general, if they are ordered to do something criminal or immoral, they are not obliged to follow those orders. Claiming that they were "only obeying orders" does not absolve them.

I agree. The soldier shouldn't be obligated to do something immoral simply because they were ordered to do so. But my point still stands that humans are ignorant of many things compared to an omniscient diety. Humans can't judge God's morality without knowing the entire chain of events that contribute to the decisions God is making.

 

[dybmh]

When you claim that your god is good or moral or justified you are judging his morality.

Actually what I'm proposing is agnostic towards God's morality. I hope God is good; but if the stories are true, God can be dreadful just as much as nurturing.

 

[dybmh]

If a person enables or excuses or justifies or defends abuse through any means, it is irrelevant if they never actually abuse anyone themselves. They are complicit.

I hear you. I've tried to be careful with my wording. Maybe I wasn't careful enough. I'm not justifying or defending the abuse. I'm justifying God's inaction claiming not enough info. It's a presumption of innocence.

 

[ppp]

Actually what I'm proposing is agnostic towards God's morality. I hope God is good; but if the stories are true, God can be dreadful just as much as nurturing.

Some pretty definitive statements for an agnostic position.

The purpose is to reward those who turn away from evil and those who remain faithful through suffering. The challenge is great so that the reward can be great.

Given unlimited lives, the abuse could be justified.

Can the stories be true? Can that god actually be?

 

[dybmh]

Some pretty definitive statements for an agnostic position.

Yes, that's because the difference in knowledge between human and God is so vast.

Can the stories be true? Can that god actually be?

yes, I'm a believer.

 

[idea]

God is evil for extending grace or for not forcing people to go to heaven?
I don't understand what you mean by anger towards the mentally ill. God loves them.
People who want to blame God for allowing evil are mistaken. If he didn't allow evil, he couldn't allow love.
You know, my wife had a sometimes abusive father. He was also a believer, but one who struggled through his life because of his own messed up past and the people who abused him. Should I hate him now that he's dead and experiencing heaven? Or should I remember all the good things he did also?

Please re-read what I wrote. NO anger towards mentally ill - pedophiles are mentally ill. What I do hold anger towards is a God who does not protect, does not educate, does NOTHING. You believe in a God who a) creates mentally ill pedophiles then b) welcomes them into heaven then c) condemns their *angry* victims to hell. Why should victim trust god or want anything to do with that vile bystander?

I do not believe in any God - no imagined absentee father figure not answering prayers for me. Just laws of nature - so much better than believing there is a God who hates children, hates everyone but privlidged pricks.

Those who sit by, tell little victims to forgive without protecting them, lie about God protecting them, lie to themselves that they don't need to do anything for anyone because *grace* enable abuse.

Thank god for secular organizations who actually help victims, and -tuff love - help pedophiles too by incarcerating them.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Please re-read what I wrote. NO anger towards mentally ill - pedophiles are mentally ill. What I do hold anger towards is a God who does not protect, does not educate, does NOTHING. You believe in a God who a) creates mentally ill pedophiles then b) welcomes them into heaven then c) condemns their *angry* victims to hell. Why should victim trust god or want anything to do with that vile bystander?

I do not believe in any God - no imagined absentee father figure not answering prayers for me. Just laws of nature - so much better than believing there is a God who hates children, hates everyone but privlidged pricks.

Those who sit by, tell little victims to forgive without protecting them, lie about God protecting them, lie to themselves that they don't need to do anything for anyone because *grace* enable abuse.

Thank god for secular organizations who actually help victims, and -tuff love - help pedophiles too by incarcerating them.

Speaking as an ex-Christian and as a survivor of childhood abuse, the best thing I've ever done for myself was to let go of my faith, hope, and trust in God and renounce my Christian faith. I'm no longer ensnared in a religion that left me depressed and emotionally traumatized. It was a difficult journey for me to renounce my Christian faith and belief in God, but it was well worth it. The negativity I experienced while I was a Christian eventually led me to Wicca and, later, polytheism, both of which have been positive experiences for me. As a Wiccan, I don't feel pressured to worship a specific deity, nor do I feel pressured to uphold moral standards at all times in order to appease an extremely vindictive and jealous god who threatens to send me to hell and torture me for all eternity if I fail to play exactly by his rules. I don't fear the wrath of any deities, nor do I feel intimidated by them. Being a Wiccan has been liberating.

 

[idea]

Speaking as an ex-Christian and as a survivor of childhood abuse, the best thing I've ever done for myself was to let go of my faith, hope, and trust in God and renounce my Christian faith. I'm no longer ensnared in a religion that left me depressed and emotionally traumatized. It was a difficult journey for me to renounce my Christian faith and belief in God, but it was well worth it. The negativity I experienced while I was a Christian eventually led me to Wicca and, later, polytheism, both of which have been positive experiences for me. As a Wiccan, I don't feel pressured to worship a specific deity, nor do I feel pressured to uphold moral standards at all times in order to appease an extremely vindictive and jealous god who threatens to send me to hell and torture me for all eternity if I fail to play exactly by his rules. I don't fear the wrath of any deities, nor do I feel in any way intimidated by them. Being a Wiccan is liberating.

I'm an apostate x too. It was my kids who were hurt - by Christian clergy. He's in jail, without parole, 40 yrs. I know most are not so lucky to see at least a little justice. Nature is my new church. Soo frustrating to deal with believers *who enabled abuse*, look down their nose at apostates.

I'm a teacher. Doing what I can to protect the next generation from murderous fairy tails.

 

[ppp]

Yes, that's because the difference in knowledge between human and God is so vast.

That is not an agnostic statement. You are shotgunning claims about the supposed nature of your god. There is nothing agnostic about your position, what so ever.

yes, I'm a believer.

Um. Bring a believer does not justify the belief.

 

[dybmh]

That is not an agnostic statement. You are shotgunning claims about the supposed nature of your god. There is nothing agnostic about your position, what so ever.

To be clear: I'm agnostic about God's morality. If you disagree, maybe tell me what I'm lacking?

Um. Being a believer does not justify the belief.

The belief was presumed by the original question: Post#355

 

[ppp]

To be clear: I'm agnostic about God's morality. If you disagree, maybe tell me what I'm lacking?

You said that, given unlimited lives that abuse with the justified. Did you not?

Was that not an attempt to justify abuse from your god? If not then, what was it?

The belief was presumed by the original question: Post#355

Maybe I'm a little slow but I don't see a question in that post; either explicit or implied. What am I missing?

 

[dybmh]

You said that, given unlimited lives that abuse with the justified. Did you not?

Yes with qualification, I said it could be justified.

Was that not an attempt to justify abuse from your god? If not then, what was it?

No. It's a natural consequence of having unlimited lives.

Maybe I'm a little slow but I don't see a question in that post; either explicit or implied. What am I missing?

I'll paraphrase. What sort of purpose could God have for creation? Is there any explanation that "makes sense"? God was presumed.

 

[KWED]

It's called Gehinnom. Here's a link that describes it better than I can: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm

Yes

In my belief, the part of the person who is a serial murderer is removed when the soul is cleansed. What's left is something pure and holy.

This just raises a whole raft of new problems.
Without an afterlife to go to, what is the point of the "soul cleansing"? And if there was, the people there wouldn't be who they were , thus making the concept incoherent.
And if god can remove the evil part of a person, why doesn't he do it before they murder several children? Why even incorporate evil into people in the first place if he is only going to remove it later?

I agree. The soldier shouldn't be obligated to do something immoral simply because they were ordered to do so. But my point still stands that humans are ignorant of many things compared to an omniscient diety. Humans can't judge God's morality without knowing the entire chain of events that contribute to the decisions God is making.

Again, not so.
If a person murders a child, I do not need to know the chain of events that brought them to that point in order to condemn their action as immoral.

 

[KWED]

Actually what I'm proposing is agnostic towards God's morality. I hope God is good; but if the stories are true, God can be dreadful just as much as nurturing.

If you concede that god might be a sadistic monster, why do you worship him?

 

[KWED]

I hear you. I've tried to be careful with my wording. Maybe I wasn't careful enough. I'm not justifying or defending the abuse. I'm justifying God's inaction claiming not enough info. It's a presumption of innocence.

But you just said you were agnostic about god's moral character, so why do you presume he is innocent?
All the evidence suggests that he is at least indifferent to our suffering despite being able to alleviate it, and at worst, that he deliberately causes it. What evidence do you have that god is morally good and benevolent?

 

[KWED]

yes, I'm a believer.

If you are agnostic about god's nature, how can you believe that he has a specific nature?
It seems like you are misusing "agnostic" to cover your discomfort over elements of his nature. If you like the sound of it, you believe it to be true. If you don't like the sound of it, you claim a lack of knowledge.

 

[dybmh]

This just raises a whole raft of new problems.

OK

Without an afterlife to go to, what is the point of the "soul cleansing"? And if there was, the people there wouldn't be who they were , thus making the concept incoherent.

The point of the cleansing is to give each soul a fresh start in the next life. They retain their good qualities, their affinities and aversions, so, they are still the same individual.

And if god can remove the evil part of a person, why doesn't he do it before they murder several children? Why even incorporate evil into people in the first place if he is only going to remove it later?

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that God doesn't do this because turning away from evil is valued greatly.

If a person murders a child, I do not need to know the chain of events that brought them to that point in order to condemn their action as immoral.

What if the child was a murderer in their past life and this crime was left unpunished?

 

[dybmh]

If you concede that god might be a sadistic monster, why do you worship him?

I have hope.

 

[dybmh]

But you just said you were agnostic about god's moral character, so why do you presume he is innocent?

It's just like a court of law. Lacking evidence innocence is presumed.

All the evidence suggests that he is at least indifferent to our suffering despite being able to alleviate it, and at worst, that he deliberately causes it. What evidence do you have that god is morally good and benevolent?

When I look around at the world where I live, I am surrounding by living things not dead things. If God were malevolent life would be much worse.

 

[dybmh]

If you are agnostic about god's nature, how can you believe that he has a specific nature?

Maybe you're right.

It seems like you are misusing "agnostic" to cover your discomfort over elements of his nature. If you like the sound of it, you believe it to be true. If you don't like the sound of it, you claim a lack of knowledge.

Maybe it's more accurate to say I'm optimistic about God's morality.

But either way, I still maintain that without more information it's impossible to judge.