But those on the Preach/Teach side of religion cannot help themselves.

They cannot just take a neutral stance like that and just let that be the position and that we, as humans, just don't have the capacity to know more.

Instead they interpret God's actions and will all the time, and state it as if clear fact. They State things as if definitive, which is them speaking for God then, since he has never stated those things, and then they retreat when challenged and worse when we then challenge them on the more odious and, by human standards morally corrupt (mass abortion of babies) they resort to 'we cannot know the mind of God or his plan and we must trust' or 'since God is good those actions must be good'.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot speak definitively about God and his intent and his actions when it serves you in your attempt to show him to be good (Superbowl ball catch) and then turn around and say we should not question, we cannot understand and we cannot judge when it comes to actions we humans consider immoral (baby abortions) an abhorrent.

If those people who feel free to speak on behalf of God and their beliefs would pick one side of the ledger and then stick to it (either we can understand and judge Gods actions (all of them), or we cannot (none of them)) then I would have a lot less issues with them. But it is this inconsistency and hypocrisy that I will never not challenge.

Here's what I think I understand from what lagtight has said:

We have a man that was born into a devoutly Christian home. Went to Sunday school and church throughout his childhood, and knows all the "rules" forwards and backwards. In spite of these teachings, he goes on to live an extremely terrible life. Forsakes the church, is nasty to everyone, and is a career criminal - never works an honest day in his life. In the end, pissed off at the world, he goes on a huge killing spree. Gunned down by police, wounded fatally, he finds himself in the hospital on his deathbed. At that time he repents and accepts Jesus as his saviour. If I understand things correctly, off he goes to heaven.

We have another man who was born into a devoutly Muslim home. Similarly, he's off to mosque regularly, learns all he is supposed to, and has learned all the ways in which he is supposed to be a good Muslim. And he adheres to those teachings all his life. Additionally (or because of his faith), he chooses to live his life in service to others, never owns anything beyond the bare minimum for survival and shares what he has with the less fortunate. When he dies, he does so still adhering to his Muslim faith. No heaven for him!

And let's throw a third one in there. He was brought up in a household of atheists, but being raised in North America is certainly aware of and has access to Christian teachings. Lives his life much like the second man, in service to others, but dies as an atheist, never believing in God. No heaven for him!

That leads me to three questions for lagtight:

1) Do I have this basically correct?
2) Do any of these men go to hell, and if not, what kind of person does go? I'm not sure if it's a binary thing for you, IE you go to one or the other, or if most people simply go to neither. Or perhaps your religion doesn't even have a hell.
3) How have you arrived at Christianity, and your particular branch of it? Is this something you learned through your childhood and have adhered to, or did you do some searching to settle upon this as the true/correct religion for you?

I ask none of this as a "gotcha" or trap. I don't see a lot of point in trying to convince the religious of the flaws I see in their beliefs. I do too much of that already in places like the riggie thread.

Are God's works just in some sort of abstract sense? Or are they just solely because they are done by God. The latter explanation essentially is the inspiration for the divine right of kings. But explanation is circular and intellectually unsatisfying.

In other words, if I ask why was it just for God to afflict the world with polio, is the correct answer "because everything God does is just." Or should I be able to discern the answer to that question using the capacity for logic that God has bestowed on humans?

Glad to see you answer and show that my prior post was indeed not off, even if purposely provocative in my word choice.


Right,

So you can correct me on the line but I think you would consider, any interruption of the fertilization process, such as the day after pill forcing the shedding of fertilized egg an abortion.

Thus every spontaneous (not directed) shedding of that same egg, that God had the role in, and every spontaneous abortion that follows that before birth would all involve God and his human subject, who was not seeking those ends. God's hand, as they say.

That would make God the biggest Mass aborter in history, arguably more so than all humans combined who have sought out or acted as an abortion agent.

Even if you start your line, of what constitutes abortion much later, it is pretty clear no human is close to God's tally in that area.

. Can we explore this?

This is one of those answers I often find quite convenient. Generally speaking in none of your other beliefs (correct me if i am wrong with an example), do you try to discern such a line. The action is either wrong or right.

To help me understand provide the passages (in as abridged form as you can, as i am not looking to nitpick the text) that you look to that define that there is an "out' or pass for people to get in to heaven due to some form of lack of 'accountability' pass?

Also do Indigenous peoples such as those who have never had access to the word or concept of God also get an 'accountability' pass? And if not, why not? What about people in the rural areas of china, who are peasants and have never been exposed? Do they also get an "accountability pass" or not?

it seems to me you are suggesting here that there may be a giant loophole for masses of people to in fact get in to heaven without being a 'repentant sinner' but I will let you clarify??

Cherry picking a few verses by Paul and ignoring other verses by, for example James was Luther's bright idea.

Tyrant implies cruel and oppressive. If that's your conception of God then I accept it but that's not what most people who claim to know tell me.

I don't see why. The Church (as in the sum total of organizations that claim to preach The Gospel) is one big mess. It always has been. Which is why you can't really draw conclusions like x = saved and y = unsaved based on anything they tell you.

I'm fine with that. The Church is a bunch of humans who have no idea what's going on in this world let alone the next. But you really shouldn't but as much faith in them as you do.

LOL

That's some sort of logical fallacy but it was pretty funny anyway.

Poor LT. He gets picked on a lot for his beliefs which I respect but I really don't blame anyone for telling him to f-off.
He should spend more time listening to God and less time reading and talking about Him.

(imho. of course)

For some reason, this reminded me of this joke:

“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn’t there. A theologian is the man who finds it.”

Yeah. To be fair, from a Christian world view, all actions aren't 'good' as the world is in a fallen state.

LT doesn't always to the best job of explaining what he's supposed to believe. lol

The problem is, when you say some people are saved and some aren't you're not doing anything that any human leader hasn't done since cave man days. Humans are tribal and will always act in a tribal manner.

Jesus tried to get people over that. But.....we see how that worked out. Dumb people. We can't help ourselves.

Yeah. We all want answers that we can't have.

That's the drug here.

On the other hand, embracing your own ignorance and going with the flow of the universe is rather intoxicating as well. Truth feels better than living with a lie I suspect.

Omnipotence would not be a sufficient condition for worship.

Intentional acts are always done for a reason. That is true for God, angels and people.

People aren't God's "toys.". There is no two-way relationship with a toy. A child can enjoy their Teddy Bear, but not in the same way they can enjoy their pet cat.

God's actions are just and not arbitrary. Even the actions of a thoughtful person are not arbitrary.

Yes.

162,317 times to be exact.

Do you think being a smart ass like that solidifies your argument? You do that all the time. Somebody burns you, and you make some smart-ass remark instead of actually responding. You're a grown ass man acting like a child. Either engage in dialogue or shut up. It's just pathetic to see someone of your advanced age act like that.

Thank you for sharing.

that is my issue.

I often feel the people most likely to 'preach' or take strong 'knowing' position on matters of God and make declaratory statements are the worst able to defend them and the most likely to drive people who are questioning their faith away from religion and God.

Ironic as I think those same people would like to feel they are the ones helping bring people to God.

If instead there was a lot more humility in those people, and instead of acting like they have sound logic and can provide proof and reason for their stances they instead just stuck to the concept of an unknowable God, who we did not attribute actions to, good or bad, I think religion would be in a much better place. At least rationally.

But instead they continually make the type of knowing statements that beg the questions myself and others then ask and push them down lines that inevitably lead them to say things like 'yes God is the biggest mass aborter of babies ...but if God does it is necessarily good and beyond our ability to judge' ..'Next!', as if that should settle it. That, I should be fine with that, asked and answered. And then embrace God as if they acted in service to him when it was quite the opposite.

and i know it has frustrated and perhaps angered Laggy when I have suggested in the past it is people like him who drive people like me away from faith and not towards it. I don't say that to be mean and i understand that is not his intent and he would gladly have it otherwise. And I believe he does not want to accept or believe that could be a consequence of his words, so instead he tends to take a position that my desire for these discussions and an exploration of faith is a sham, as is my claim to any religious upbringing. i guess that is easier than believing one who wants to do "good" could be doing "harm".

But I have immense curiosity about religion(s) and belief and where I may or may not fall on that spectrum and I have not been able to answer those questions to myself or to others when asked. I am in transition and open but unfortunately the more I engage with 'religious' people, it seems the more their answers drive me away.

That might mean faith ultimately is for the blind and those who, when faced with tough questions can just say 'next' and skip over it as they do not like where the exploration of that question will lead them. I suspect many of the 'most educated' followers would say some version of that. That there are simply some things we are not meant to understand. To me the much wiser than speaking as if you have answers or your statements are definitive or truths, when they are not.

I have no issue with ignorance.

I consider myself agnostic with regards to both a God type being who would be sentient and interactive with the universe, just as I am with the idea of advanced Aliens who may have the ability to have visited earth or any other planets in the universe. If there is that type of God like being who did become the crux of our planets religious beliefs I would probably wager on it being an advanced Alien species.

If people want to speak to either/or of those, great. I am all ears for that conversation with genuine interest, most times. But as soon as they start speaking in a knowing way, and ascribing things to the God or Aliens as if fact or as if definitive, then they will not only lose me but almost certainly get an argument from to test them. I want to know what they actually know, and separate that from what they want to believe and then convince themselves is factual or true when it is not.

Humans have an immense capacity for self delusion, imo, when they want to believe something. I am not sure if that is an evolutionary trait that evolved out of necessity (thus is/was a good) or a glitch in our matrix and flaw that emerged.


it certainly is exploitable though as Trump is now showing.

If God allowed it, it is necessarily good, as God is good and nothing happens that is not part of God's plan. A plan we are unable to comprehend and should not assume to.


But the person who carried it out, is to be condemned for that abortion despite only following God's plan and really having no ability to deviate from God's plan and create their own counter plan.


'Next!'


(maybe there is simply a quota of babies and aborters needed to go to hell each year and thus this is just a way to pad those numbers?? Like a police officer pointing you towards driving the wrong way down a one way street, while another cop sits at the far end and tickets you saying ignorance is no excuse. When you ask WTF? They say 'it is not for you to understand their ways' as they then hit their quota and get their bonus??)

This is at odds with your earlier idea that god owns people so he can morally do whatever he wants to them. A pet owner has a moral responsibility to take care of his pets and not afflict them with plagues and volcanos and ****.

Even if the pets are gay?

Category Fallacy. The pet owner did not create their pet; the pet owner is rather a steward of their pet. It is a false analogy.

Having said that, for someone with a PhD it was a remarkably good try.

It's odd that the sky fairy never helps you out with your piss poor argumentation, you know, given how hard you've been fighting his corner for decades. He could just show us one miracle and the matter would be settled forever.

No. Its called friendly banter with my friend d2_e4

I do a little of both, actually.

Couldn't agree more; I'd say I act like a 12-year-old most of the time.

Sad, ain't it.

I’m using your analogy FFS.

But okay, let’s say a pet owner did create his own kittens. Still okay for him to torture them?

I mean, if god is a “steward” of mankind, that sort of implies he should stop sending tornados and polio our way.

Mr. PhD doesn't see the distinction between the creator of a thing and a steward over a thing.