Why would anyone want the Christan God to be real?

[Danmac]

Most people are in hell, being tormented through unimaginable suffering.

You, however, are among the lucky few. But what is in store for you?

Not being able to trust a being who enjoys mercilessly tormenting others, you would live life in fear. The God of the bible is real. The same God who,

1) Flooded the world
2) Condoned genocide
3) The same God who had a son, only to have him crucified
4) Who tested Abraham's faith by telling him to kill his own son
5) Who allowed demons to prowl the world
6) Who allows natural disasters
7) Terrible health problems, like cancer and heart attacks
8) Condones slavery
9) Death sentences carried out by means of stoning
10) Holocaust
11) Has fits of rage
12) Job's suffering
13) Constantly demands worship and adoration

"Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

I just don't see how anyone would want to live under such a God. You would be afraid that at any time he might snap, and start tossing more people into hell. Its a terrible prospect.

Why would any reasonable person want to be in an afterlife with the God of the bible? Shouldn't believers be worried about this? I mean, just read the book. That gives you a good idea of what God is like. No reasonable person would want to live under such a God. To hope for a life in heaven would be to hope for a life of fear and forced worship, and probably future punishment - or worse, eternal torment.

What you prefer to be true really has no bearing on what is and what isn't. I think Mr Bacon said it pretty well......

Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true. -Bacon

 

[asketikos]

It is most interesting how you completely ignored everything on the list and instead presented an example that is not even mentioned in the OP.

So, are you going to actually address anything on the list in the OP?

I believe I did, but let me reiterate. Some things in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally - especially the Old Testament. You have to understand that it is a construct of a God that made sense to people thousands of years ago; it is not the definitive answer to what God is - instead, when disaster's occured, people explained it as God's will in the bible - that does not mean, that God is jealous, or schemey, or whatever - God works in mysterious ways. The Dawkins, and the new atheist interpretation, is ludicrous because it does not take into effect the

Address things on your list -- okay, let's take the Holocaust.

Where in the bible does it say that God allowed the Holocaust (I'm thinking Dawkins is referring to the WWII Holocaust)?

All Dawkins is saying, is making a very simple-minded 4th grade Sunday school question -- "if God is good, then why do bad things happen, that means God makes bad things happen, why did he let the Holocaust happen?" etc., etc., etc.

These statements are devoid of serious theological, philosophical, and historical frameworks, and is rather more designed to flare the anti-theist mind, then to delve into and address the mysteries, contradictions, and the supposed cruelty of the Judeo-Christian faith and God.

 

[JustWondering]

Numbers 31:14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds--who returned from the battle. 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.

16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

The bible has it all doesn't it? Murder, rape, genocide, slavery, intolerance. I've always thought christianity would be better off without the old testament and revelations.

 

[waitasec]

I believe I did, but let me reiterate. Some things in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally - especially the Old Testament. You have to understand that it is a construct of a God that made sense to people thousands of years ago; it is not the definitive answer to what God is - instead, when disaster's occured, people explained it as God's will in the bible - that does not mean, that God is jealous, or schemey, or whatever - God works in mysterious ways. The Dawkins, and the new atheist interpretation, is ludicrous because it does not take into effect the

Address things on your list -- okay, let's take the Holocaust.

Where in the bible does it say that God allowed the Holocaust (I'm thinking Dawkins is referring to the WWII Holocaust)?

All Dawkins is saying, is making a very simple-minded 4th grade Sunday school question -- "if God is good, then why do bad things happen, that means God makes bad things happen, why did he let the Holocaust happen?" etc., etc., etc.

These statements are devoid of serious theological, philosophical, and historical frameworks, and is rather more designed to flare the anti-theist mind, then to delve into and address the mysteries, contradictions, and the supposed cruelty of the Judeo-Christian faith and God.

i disagree, it's just a 4th grade level of understanding that created the god of the bible in the first place...
as people evolved from bronze age superstition, the idea of god evolved too... there are many contradictions in the bible for this very reason.

 

[839311]

I believe I did, but let me reiterate. Some things in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally - especially the Old Testament.

Does the OT still have a place within civilization as a legitimate tool of learning? Will future generations in a far off age simply ignore it, like we ignore so many religions past and present? Or just study it like we study greek mythology. Will there be a future subject called 'OT mythology'?

 

[no-body]

The same reason people go out there and proselytize and really convince themselves the bible is the word of God: they want the reward of gaining super powered bodies, immortality, bliss, being with their loved ones forever etc in exchange for simple obedience.

The reason most Christians believe in God is truly vain and shallow. It's the logic of wanting to be on the winning team.

A true lover of God would treat Him like Rumi does... it would be about the beloved, not the details of some human made book.

 

[asketikos]

i disagree, it's just a 4th grade level of understanding that created the god of the bible in the first place...
as people evolved from bronze age superstition, the idea of god evolved too... there are many contradictions in the bible for this very reason.

i agree there are many contradictions in the bible, that is actually, exactly what i said

secondly, you did not answer my question, regarding the Holocaust

thirdly,the concept of God, an intelligent designer, is not unintelligent at all, that we can disagree upon, but Dawkin's completely unintelligent thesis and his too literate interpretation of the Bible, is actually extremely unimpressive, even to well-educated atheists who are historians, students of philosophy, etc. His book are aimed at a simplistic, somewhat fanatical, anti-theist segment of the population who has absolutely no real knowledge of religion, its practices, and beliefs.

the wise way of approaching religion from a anti-theistic framework, is to have an intelligent argument, instead of listing the faults, mysteries, and problems that come from what people do in the name of a God or religon; being completely dismissive of a philosophical movement that has affected every aspect of our civilizaiton - both negatively and positively - is absurd, uneducated, and leads absolutely nowhere.

Yes we can all find faults, and the point is?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So you are saying the bible isnt relevant anymore? Because most of the 13 points I mentioned come directly out of the bible.

No, I'm saying that your strawman is irrelevant.

There is a difference between the Bible and your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of it.

What you're doing is much like how a fundamentalist Christian abuses the Bible: they are under the delusion that how they interpret the Bible is the Bible...

I'm not disputing, by metaphor, that your strawman is not made out of straw. I'm saying that it's not a man.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does the OT still have a place within civilization as a legitimate tool of learning? Will future generations in a far off age simply ignore it, like we ignore so many religions past and present? Or just study it like we study greek mythology. Will there be a future subject called 'OT mythology'?

Holy cow.

That's how scholars have studied both the New and Old Testament for at least the past 200 years.

Yeah, there's a future in it.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

The Abrahamic God is an exceptionally cruel character. Can you imagine what it would be like to condemn someone to eternal suffering? How could you live with yourself?

Maybe it's because he lacks a counciouse or he just doesn't care. I'm going to go with the latter choice.

 

[839311]

There is a difference between the Bible and your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of it.

• Exodus 31:15 - For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

How exactly are we supposed to interpret this?

What you're doing is much like how a fundamentalist Christian abuses the Bible: they are under the delusion that how they interpret the Bible is the Bible... .

No doubt your interpretation is the best one.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

• 
  
  No doubt your interpretation is the best one.

• 
  
  It cannot be worse than yours.
  
  Do you have a PhD in Hebrew Bible or a related field?
  
  Oh, and ask me an insightful question.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Well, I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but I personally want the Christian God to be real because He has promised everyone who makes it to Heaven a new Chevy Corvette. Seriously. That is in the book of Isaiah, I think, or maybe it's Malachi.

[youtube]CWSJAdzVBj0[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWSJAdzVBj0

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're the man, Rick.

 

[839311]

ask me an insightful question.

What is your interpretation of the passage I mentioned?

Exodus 31:15 - For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

 

[McBell]

I believe I did, but let me reiterate. Some things in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally - especially the Old Testament. You have to understand that it is a construct of a God that made sense to people thousands of years ago; it is not the definitive answer to what God is - instead, when disaster's occured, people explained it as God's will in the bible - that does not mean, that God is jealous, or schemey, or whatever - God works in mysterious ways. The Dawkins, and the new atheist interpretation, is ludicrous because it does not take into effect the

Address things on your list -- okay, let's take the Holocaust.

Where in the bible does it say that God allowed the Holocaust (I'm thinking Dawkins is referring to the WWII Holocaust)?

All Dawkins is saying, is making a very simple-minded 4th grade Sunday school question -- "if God is good, then why do bad things happen, that means God makes bad things happen, why did he let the Holocaust happen?" etc., etc., etc.

These statements are devoid of serious theological, philosophical, and historical frameworks, and is rather more designed to flare the anti-theist mind, then to delve into and address the mysteries, contradictions, and the supposed cruelty of the Judeo-Christian faith and God.

Ah.
So basically you are trying really really hard to get past the medieval structure of the scriptures by looking for some "deeper" meaning from a god who never changes?

 

[McBell]

[youtube]CWSJAdzVBj0[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWSJAdzVBj0

[youtube]MS70tCPP-_4[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS70tCPP-_4&feature=related

 

[waitasec]

i agree there are many contradictions in the bible, that is actually, exactly what i said

why just "some things" are not to be taken literally...?
when is the bible to be taken literally?

secondly, you did not answer my question, regarding the Holocaust

can you tell me which dawkins book you are referring to?

thirdly,the concept of God, an intelligent designer, is not unintelligent at all, that we can disagree upon, but Dawkin's completely unintelligent thesis and his too literate interpretation of the Bible, is actually extremely unimpressive, even to well-educated atheists who are historians, students of philosophy, etc. His book are aimed at a simplistic, somewhat fanatical, anti-theist segment of the population who has absolutely no real knowledge of religion, its practices, and beliefs.

so we are supposed to let the religious right put a stick in the wheel of progress when it comes to;
stem cell research, civil rights, ID... dawkins isn't pulling things out of midair.
you have to understand that these 3 abrahamic religions have a great deal of influence in the world.

the wise way of approaching religion from a anti-theistic framework, is to have an intelligent argument, instead of listing the faults, mysteries, and problems that come from what people do in the name of a God or religon;

huh? are you denying religion has faults, is contradictory and condones the use of ultimatums, fear mongering and control?

btw, an argument is:
a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood

being completely dismissive of a philosophical movement that has affected every aspect of our civilizaiton - both negatively and positively - is absurd, uneducated, and leads absolutely nowhere.

you are leaving out something of importance here, dawkins is being dismissive of the faults of religion

Yes we can all find faults, and the point is?

to learn from them...not to sweep these faults under the rug and pretend they don't exist or even more dangerous, denying their existence all together... otherwise, how do we progress?


ps
does your computer's firewall keep you from watching youtube videos or links to videos?

 

[asketikos]

why just "some things" are not to be taken literally...?
when is the bible to be taken literally?


can you tell me which dawkins book you are referring to?



so we are supposed to let the religious right put a stick in the wheel of progress when it comes to;
stem cell research, civil rights, ID... dawkins isn't pulling things out of midair.
you have to understand that these 3 abrahamic religions have a great deal of influence in the world.



huh? are you denying religion has faults, is contradictory and condones the use of ultimatums, fear mongering and control?

btw, an argument is:
a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood



you are leaving out something of importance here, dawkins is being dismissive of the faults of religion



to learn from them...not to sweep these faults under the rug and pretend they don't exist or even more dangerous, denying their existence all together... otherwise, how do we progress?


ps
does your computer's firewall keep you from watching youtube videos or links to videos?

The Dawkins book that I am referring to, is the Dawkins book that is quoted in the very first post of this thread - The God Delusion.

Second: Some things are to be taken literally, and some things are not. Now you might say that makes little sense.

But, I guess you did not understand my point - the Bible was composed over thousands of years, by different people, people had different ways of writing, not everything was literal, most of it was anecdotal, metaphorical, it was a literary style and genre that was used, some literary styles and genres do not expect their words to be taken literally.

As I have said, even atheistic historians and atheists have agreed on this aspect of the Bible, that many parts were not meant to be taken literally, also many things are simply taken out of context. Does that answer your question?

That's the word - the religious right. I am not part of this right, billions of people are not part of this right, a small fundamental American right-wing is. Your argument is based on nothing.

Of course I am aware of what role religion plays, but it is playing an increasingly smaller role in the Western world, that is a fact, and that isn't necessarily something bad.

You have to understand that there are different kinds of religious/faithful people - to lump them into a category of the religous right is moronic, unfounded, and uneducated. The Catholics, for example, are typically liberal in the US.

Also - i never left out that Dawkins is dismissive of the faults of religion, that is EXACTLY what I said, and pointed out that it is more about RELIGION then it is about GOD - which is what this thread about.

Finally - WOW - how many times do i have to say religion is contradictory! I said it like 3 times in my post.

This thread is about a Christian God - not about REligion, the Religious Right, or what was/is done in the name of God.

ps. does something prevent you from reading books on which you base your own arguments, i.e. Dawkins? At least read a book which you are trying to defend.

 

[waitasec]

Some things are to be taken literally, and some things are not. Now you might say that makes little sense.

But, I guess you did not understand my point - the Bible was composed over thousands of years, by different people, people had different ways of writing, not everything was literal, most of it was anecdotal, metaphorical, it was a literary style and genre that was used, some literary styles and genres do not expect their words to be taken literally.

As I have said, even atheistic historians and atheists have agreed on this aspect of the Bible, that many parts were not meant to be taken literally, also many things are simply taken out of context. Does that answer your question?

no, it doesn't. because your explanation does not include as to why
so many religious people believe the bible is to be taken literally...

That's the word - the religious right. I am not part of this right, billions of people are not part of this right, a small fundamental American right-wing is. Your argument is based on nothing.

so explain to me why such a miniscule group of people think
ID should be taught in schools and do so...where able to stop stem cell research...and advocate for the unconstitutional defense of marriage act?

Of course I am aware of what role religion plays, but it is playing an increasingly smaller role in the Western world, that is a fact, and that isn't necessarily something bad.

tell me what developed country teaches ID in their schools? exercises capital punishment, and infringes on the civil rights of same sex marriages?

The Global View Of Gay Marriage - CBS News

You have to understand that there are different kinds of religious/faithful people - to lump them into a category of the religous right is moronic, unfounded, and uneducated. The Catholics, for example, are typically liberal in the US.

who are against the use of birth control and divorce...care to restate?

Also - i never left out that Dawkins is dismissive of the faults of religion, that is EXACTLY what I said, and pointed out that it is more about RELIGION then it is about GOD - which is what this thread about.

i'm not sure i understand you point here...
the approach to the christian religion is subjected to the bibles interpretation of a bronze age to medieval ideal of god...
if god were real, why would anyone want it to be like the christian god?
lets read the quote...
"Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

are you really surprised that dawkins came up with these attributes after reading the bible?
are you really going to stand there and say that the majority of the christian followers in this country, in particular, do not take the bible at face value?

Finally - WOW - how many times do i have to say religion is contradictory! I said it like 3 times in my post.

This thread is about a Christian God -

all those attributes are attributed to the christian god from reading the christian bible.

ps. does something prevent you from reading books on which you base your own arguments, i.e. Dawkins? At least read a book which you are trying to defend.

well to be honest i wasn't trying to back up any book
just giving my opinion based on life experience..

you might have seen this...but if you haven't and have an hour to kill at some point..i highly recommend this...

[youtube]9RExQFZzHXQ[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ