God on Trial

@Krumple,

Krumple;82300 wrote:

Wouldn't it be more love like to not have such a reaction?

Yes so why did you put it in a box and lock it, why don't you just take what you can get or maybe you'd be missing out on something if you didn't, may not be what you wanted exactly but it maybe something that you've never experienced before?

Krumple;82300 wrote:

Wouldn't instead the reaction be disappointment without punishment?

Not sure what you mean here?
And I'm not sure why a person would go through all the motions and not actually feel love, are you sure they were just going through the motions and maybe they're not really in a position to give you want you want.

0 Replies

@TheSingingSword,

click here;82229 wrote:

I'm as sure that Adam and Eve were real people as sure as you are that there was a big bang that caused a chain reaction to bring you to respond to this specific sentence.

Who said I was sure about a big bang? If you are sure about Adam and Eve, why don't we start a thread on the validity of this wonderful story.

click here;82229 wrote:

Am I responsible for that?

I don't know, Are you? Is it the same God? All Gods are created differently so it depends on who's God I suppose.

0 Replies

@ltdaleadergt,

Let's say you have been dating someone for quite a while and one day you realize that you are in love with the person you have been dating. You decide that you want to tell this person how you feel. So the next time you see them, you reveal your love to them. However they reveal to you that they are not exactly in love with you. That they were just going through the motions. So you push them into a box and slap a lock onto it and push it slowly into a fiery oven. Is this really love?

Wouldn't it be more love like to not have such a reaction? Wouldn't instead the reaction be disappointment without punishment?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krumple
Wouldn't instead the reaction be disappointment without punishment?

Not sure what you mean here?
And I'm not sure why a person would go through all the motions and not actually feel love, are you sure they were just going through the motions and maybe they're not really in a position to give you want you want.

I thought about answering your question Caroline but I figured I would just translate the entire thing I wrote to give the entire perspective. So here goes...

Quote:

Let's say you have been dating someone for quite a while and one day you realize that you are in love with the person you have been dating. You decide that you want to tell this person how you feel. So the next time you see them, you reveal your love to them.

This is analogous to god wanting to present his love to me.

Quote:

However they reveal to you that they are not exactly in love with you. That they were just going through the motions.

This is me, because I have never really seen clearly that any love was truly coming from god. So why return the love if there is no evidence? I have never been convinced that there is one ounce of love from god. In fact I will go as far as to say there is more evidence for just the opposite of love.

Quote:

So you push them into a box and slap a lock onto it and push it slowly into a fiery oven. Is this really love?

Since god realizes that I do not return his love he pushes me into a box to torture me for the rest of time. How can he on one hand claim to love me, yet since I refuse to return the love, he insists on torturing me as the result?

Quote:

Wouldn't it be more love like to not have such a reaction? Wouldn't instead the reaction be disappointment without punishment?

If someone does not return your love, are you wanting to punish them? No, you accept it, but it does not in any way diminish your thoughts nor would you want harm let alone torture to befall them.

If there is anyone who wants to torture the person whom they claim to love, well I must say, that was really not love to begin with.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;82350 wrote:

...you reveal your love to them. However they reveal to you that they are not exactly in love with you. .

You're missing the point, they cannot return the type of love tht you want, not no love at all.

Krumple;82350 wrote:

Since god realizes that I do not return his love he pushes me into a box to torture me for the rest of time. .

He does? I thought you did that yourself.

Krumple;82350 wrote:

...If there is anyone who wants to torture the person whom they claim to love, well I must say, that was really not love to begin with.

So you say, God really does love you, you only have to look for it and stop locking yourself away in a box or else how can God love you?

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Krumple;82350 wrote:

Since god realizes that I do not return his love he pushes me into a box to torture me for the rest of time.

Caroline;82360 wrote:
He does? I thought you did that yourself.

If love were purely selfless, would it have any beauty at all?

Is it really love to have to love somebody unconditionally, well...unless you want the other option. I mean, why bother with the other option.

Why would the concepts of reward and punishment belong in this realm of love, this connection that god would try to create with itself and humanity. And why tell us about it? That does not sound like love; that sounds like an appeal to fear and comfort.

Hate to bring Nietzsche into the picture, but wouldn't it make more sense and something God would surely understand, if love were something that transcended such a duality? So why bring such a duality into context? Perhaps a true god would not have done such a thing.

0 Replies

@ltdaleadergt,

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krumple
Since god realizes that I do not return his love he pushes me into a box to torture me for the rest of time. .

He does? I thought you did that yourself.

Really? If someone tells me they love me and I do not return that love, then I am placing myself into a lock box? No. I am not crawling into a lock box because I refuse to love god. Not only that but the very fact that the lock box was created in the first place only proves my point. Why is there a hell if gods love is pure? Hell would never exist in any sense of the word, weather light punishment or with great torture.

Some will try to make the argument that there is no hell but instead there is just absence of god. Well okay, that is absolutely and completely fine with me because right at this moment I am utterly content without god needing to exist, so if you want to call hell, the lack of gods presence, it shouldn't be called hell but instead, reality.

0 Replies

@ltdaleadergt,

<daleader>;81721 wrote:

I am sure we always wanted to wonder why can god/does god get away with so many things in this world. Things that he can very well control if he wants and those that in a way he is repossible for. So in here I want to hear you ask question that you cannot make sense out of and in this way we try to understand what god possibly was thinking when he allowed/cause such an event.
=-=
Assume there is a GOD!

Which entitie holds more blame for an action? The one that allows it, or the one that choose to do it, or the one that allows one to choose to do it?

To assume that there is a entitie that composes all that exists in this existence, therfore from this we can denote with high probibility that such an entitie must be the one that allows an action to happen, and allows one to choose to do it, and logicaly and most likly such things would be the choice that the entitie has choosen.

Lets also assume there is such a thing as or sense of "Choice" in conducting are actions. (Hence not assuming all of are actions are a result of somthing els other than are choice.)

So lets ask these questions under the stated assumptions above.

1. Who's intent was it to kill the person?
Answer: Well clearly it was not the intent of the entitie to kill the person, but its the entities intent to allow a person the choice to choose to kill the person, assuming there is such a thing as or sense of "Choice".

2.Who's choice was it to kill the person?
Answer: Well clearly it was not the entities choice to kill the person, due to denoted information from stated assumptions.

So...such an entitie is to blame for allowing such, but not to blame for doing such, allthough one could say that such an entitie shares the responsibility for the action being commited, yet which is more responsible of the acttion being commited? The one that allows it, or the one that dose it? Is it equal? Hence one is more responsible for allowing the action to happen that the other, yet the other is more responsible for commiting the action than the other.

Yet clearly, It seems unlogical for such an entitie act in such a way without a reason why. In a christian aspect, the bible has a verse which might tell why a christian based entitie would do such.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must ALL appear before the judgement seat of Christ: that every one receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Yet from a non-religious point of view and knowlege, the present assumptions denote two dualistic reasons why. (There are alot more)

1. Such an entitie is in a state which dose not allow such actions, or exists in a state of nothingness.
2. Such an entitie is following some code of conduct, theme, rule's, morals, which dictates how it interacts with humanity. (For example a dualistic theme would promote non-interaction with humanity, since the entitie is the opposite of humanity and humanity interacts with humanity, and ect...)

*note great thread:D

0 Replies

@click here,

click here;82229 wrote:

There are no malicious actions. You seem to think there are though, please elaborate.

Excuse me, but I think murder, rape, genocide, infanticide and so forth, qualifies as malicious dont you agree? We can also go down a few notches on the severity level and talk about god being a liar and a hypocrite. If you want me to provide verses I can start piling them on but we all know that god has killed, murdered, lied, et cetera etc. So the question isnt: has god done malicious actions? because we all know he/she/it has. The more appropriate question to which I was getting at is: how can you blindly follow your king and not even think about questioning these clearly malicious actions? Is moral correctness, justice, liberty, free-will, etc. not important to you? I fail to see how clarification for one's actions is somehow unimportant.

Perhaps Im overreacting. I should turn off my thinking cap and be more nonchalant about people being murdered huh?

click here wrote:

What is the free will issue that you've mentioned in passing twice?
You want me to respond, so detail.

Lets see.

God (supposedly) gave man free-will, but god murders man (among other things).... do you need more detail than that or do you see the implications?

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Krumple;82300 wrote:

You failed to see what I was talking about, so let me try it another way.

Let's say you have been dating someone for quite a while and one day you realize that you are in love with the person you have been dating. You decide that you want to tell this person how you feel. So the next time you see them, you reveal your love to them. However they reveal to you that they are not exactly in love with you. That they were just going through the motions. So you push them into a box and slap a lock onto it and push it slowly into a fiery oven. Is this really love?

Wouldn't it be more love like to not have such a reaction? Wouldn't instead the reaction be disappointment without punishment?

Your analogy fails to relate the ownership between God and Man. Also your analogy is completely different from how God and Man's relationship actually takes place. I don't hope to appear to be an expert on the topic, though I think from the common perceptions of the christian God one would conclude that your analogy fails at representing the relationship in many areas. e.g. God's omniscience

Justin;82309 wrote:

Who said I was sure about a big bang? If you are sure about Adam and Eve, why don't we start a thread on the validity of this wonderful story.

Sure. Sounds like fun.

Kielicious;82378 wrote:

Excuse me, but I think murder, rape, genocide, infanticide and so forth, qualifies as malicious dont you agree? We can also go down a few notches on the severity level and talk about god being a liar and a hypocrite. If you want me to provide verses I can start piling them on but we all know that god has killed, murdered, lied, et cetera etc. So the question isnt: has god done malicious actions? because we all know he/she/it has. The more appropriate question to which I was getting at is: how can you blindly follow your king and not even think about questioning these clearly malicious actions? Is moral correctness, justice, liberty, free-will, etc. not important to you? I fail to see how clarification for one's actions is somehow unimportant.

Perhaps Im overreacting. I should turn off my thinking cap and be more nonchalant about people being murdered huh?

I hope you know that there is a difference between murder and killing. I see murder as by definition always wrong. Taking of someones life for no good reason basically. Killing is taking of ones life but in some definitions for a good reason. For example, a man comes in to your house and begins firing a gun off at everyone. Everyone is dead except you, though you have a shot to the leg and you manage to scramble over to your hidden gun, the man approaches and takes aim. You fire first and kill him resulting in sparing your own life. You killed the man whom killed all of the others in your house and who was planning on finishing you off. I would say that this type of killing, specifically on your part, is not wrong in the least bit.

God never murders as that would be a contradiction of terms. If Gods nature prohibits him from doing that which violates his nature and murdering is a violation of God's nature, then God never murders. Though God does kill and every example of God killing that you throw at me I will show you that it is justified by the terms that describe God throughout the Bible. Now you may say by your own opinion he is not justified and therefore murdering but that would fail to coincide with the terms that you agree to by referring to the Bible for this discussion as the source of answers. I assume you do this as you seem to think that the Bible contradicts itself, so to prove that you must only use the Bible not your own opinions of what the Bible says.

What makes you think I do not question God's actions??? If my mother were to die today surely I would wish to know why my mothers life was taken. I would want to know why God chose to do/allow what he had done but I would not question the motives. Or at least if I did, which I surely could do, I would know that I was wrong in doing so.

The reason why this is so: If Gods motives are to be questioned what is the reason for their questioning? To find a fault in the motive. Though for there to be fault in the motive there has to be a violation of God's nature. Since I do not believe that God can violate his nature I have no reason to assume that God has "wrong" motives. So in the end this discussion hopefully apparently breaks down into analyzing God's nature.

Kielicious;82378 wrote:

God (supposedly) gave man free-will, but god murders man (among other things).... do you need more detail than that or do you see the implications?

I still do not understand where you are going with this. As of yet I see no apparent issues. Are you looking again for a contradiction of terms? Are you thinking that 'free-will' means the will to not be killed by God? That would be a highly uncommon view of free will.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know