Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

north wrote:
So your saying that reading those passages in revelations will Not harm Humanity ? BS
Sometimes I wonder how much consideration you give to word choice and order.
I think Frank might understand what I mean.
But, to answer your question as written:
The reading of those passages is not likley to effect humanity in the least.
(Even if you read out loud.)
So don't worry; go ahead.

But will these passages affect this god?

And Then whats your point about reading them ?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neo wrote:

'Wager' is your word. Satan has been under a death sentence from the beginning (Genesis 3:15). The only stakes in the 'game' are the lives of Adam's descendants.

Well, if there are stakes involved I would think that describing it as as wager would be appropriate.

neo wrote:

Every intelligent being, including angels, created by God has free will. So, the doctrines of predestination or reprobation taught by some are false. Whether it is correct to aver that God 'switches' or 'turns' omniscience on or off, I have no idea. Perhaps the word 'omniscience' is not the correct word.

Sure, but how does your dogma deal with the dilema? You have said elsewhere that God can know everything but choses not to know everything, especially in regard to human volition and God's proxy trial of humans.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

neo wrote:

'Wager' is your word. Satan has been under a death sentence from the beginning (Genesis 3:15). The only stakes in the 'game' are the lives of Adam's descendants.

Blue wrote:

Well, if there are stakes involved I would think that describing it as as wager would be appropriate

Good point. Though it should be noted that Satan's death sentence was pronounced immediately, while our involvement in the issue is not voluntary.

neo wrote:

Every intelligent being, including angels, created by God has free will. So, the doctrines of predestination or reprobation taught by some are false. Whether it is correct to aver that God 'switches' or 'turns' omniscience on or off, I have no idea. Perhaps the word 'omniscience' is not the correct word.

Blue wrote:

Sure, but how does your dogma deal with the dilema? You have said elsewhere that God can know everything but choses not to know everything, especially in regard to human volition and God's proxy trial of humans.

What dilemma is imposed by free will?

1 Reply

@north,

You and I are not on the same page.
In fact, we are not even in the same library.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Good point. Though it should be noted that Satan's death sentence was pronounced immediately, while our involvement in the issue is not voluntary.

Are you referring to our involvent in the issue of Satan's death sentence, or our involvement in the issue of God's wager with Satan?
How do these affect the fact that it is a wager?

neo wrote:

What dilemma is imposed by free will?

The dilema of God's omniscience as part of his omnipotence contrasted with human free will in regard to God's wager with Satan. You're saying that God choses not to know the outcome of his wager with Satan. At what point did God choose not to know the outcome of his wager with Satan?

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

neologist wrote:
Good point. Though it should be noted that Satan's death sentence was pronounced immediately, while our involvement in the issue is not voluntary.

Are you referring to our involvent in the issue of Satan's death sentence, or our involvement in the issue of God's wager with Satan?
How do these affect the fact that it is a wager?

neo wrote:
What dilemma is imposed by free will?

The dilema of God's omniscience as part of his omnipotence contrasted with human free will in regard to God's wager with Satan. You're saying that God choses not to know the outcome of his wager with Satan. At what point did God choose not to know the outcome of his wager with Satan?

The wager doesn't make any sense. Because both sides would be aware that there will always be a certain percentage that will ultimately be on either side without question. No matter what you threaten, no matter what nonsense you attempt to teach, there will always be some who will never accept something especially if what is taught is arbitrary nonsense.

Here is the thing that disqualifies god for the status of godhood, if this whole thing is true. To create a being without giving them them option to play the game. You are born and forced to chose a side? Who asked you if you wanted to take part? You were forced into it. Regardless if you attempt to claim that you had prior notice before being born that you would take part in this silly game. You have no memory of it, so you can't claim that.

It would be like you are enslaved to existence and the only way you can have a slightly more meaningful one is to pledge yourself to one of the sides. This is nothing less than indentured existence. So if this is really the case then god doesn't deserve any praise let alone loyalty or support.

Some attempt to get around this by claiming existence is a gift from god. It's not a gift if it comes with a liability or condition. It's more like a bribe. I didn't ask for existence. I have it, but I don't owe anyone anything for it. Sure there are a hundred thousand humans who support my existence with their jobs to make sure I can live a half way decent existence. But they all are in the same boat. We mutually support each other, so no one owes anyone anything for their life.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The dilema of God's omniscience as part of his omnipotence contrasted with human free will in regard to God's wager with Satan. You're saying that God choses not to know the outcome of his wager with Satan.

Sorry if I gave that impression. The angel who made himself Satan has free will. His rebellion was not known in advance, nor was it part of God's purpose. The outcome of the 'wager' as you choose to describe it, was foretold, however, at Genesis 3:15, after the fact.

Blue wrote:

At what point did God choose not to know the outcome of his wager with Satan?

Do you use the term 'wager' as if there are some agreed upon terms, perhaps including some outcome favorable to Satan? That's not the case. Before the mutiny, Satan was as any angel. Somehow, he developed a motive to resist God's authority. Whatever the motive, God had already given free will. The events in Eden were Satan's own doing.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

neologist wrote:

. . .our involvement in the issue is not voluntary.

You wrote:

The wager doesn't make any sense.

Agreed

You wrote:

Here is the thing that disqualifies god for the status of godhood, if this whole thing is true. To create a being without giving them them option to play the game. You are born and forced to chose a side? Who asked you if you wanted to take part? You were forced into it. . . .

But, as I pointed out, the 'game' is Satan's. Currently.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Krumple wrote:

Here is the thing that disqualifies god for the status of godhood, if this whole thing is true. To create a being without giving them them option to play the game. You are born and forced to chose a side? Who asked you if you wanted to take part? You were forced into it. . . .

neologist wrote:

But, as I pointed out, the 'game' is Satan's. Currently.

It doesn't matter who is in control of the game. A god creating you and tossing you into the game, is not the actions of a compassionate, caring or loving being.

It would be like if you owned a daycare company at your home and you had a back yard full of wild carnivores and you forced the children to play in the backyard with these dangerous animals who are hungry. How would that be fair to force them into that? It sure as hell is not caring nor loving.

You completely lack compassion for these children well being if you willing chose to subject them to such an environment when you know damn well they will be in danger.

This is what doesn't make sense about the ideology of christian thought. I understand they are convinced by other means, but they don't take the time to calculate the consequences of what the theology implies.

This is why I don't buy the christian concept. I lean more towards Buddhism because everything in Buddhism is about you. Your choices determine your destiny. No being can rescue or save you, not even a Buddha. The only thing that gives you any chance to save you from yourself is that the Buddha discovered (through investigation) that there are steps you can take to minimize the problems you create for yourself. And if you are so willing, you can take that final step that neutralizes any future roads to problems.

Of course there is dogma lumped into Buddhism but if you investigate the core teachings there is no dogma. These bits of dogma that have made their way in are usually and typically brought in via culture that pre-existed in the culture which adopted Buddhist philosophy. And Buddhism takes a pretty neutral stance on denying culture of it's traits because it is not concerned over what you want to believe.

The Buddha just said there is only a single criteria that you need when it comes to investigating other religions. If it leads to the cessation of dukkha then that is all that matters. Who spoke it, where it was taught, or how you learn it, is completely irrelevant. You are not saved by worshiping, and a temple or church can't save you. Only putting into practice the way in which leads to the end of suffering can. If there is any other teaching besides this, then it is just more dukkha.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

It doesn't matter who is in control of the game. A god creating you and tossing you into the game, is not the actions of a compassionate, caring or loving being.

Many feel just as you, that God should have destroyed the rebels on the spot and continued his purpose for a paradise earth.

Do you see any problems with that solution?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Krumple wrote:
It doesn't matter who is in control of the game. A god creating you and tossing you into the game, is not the actions of a compassionate, caring or loving being.
Many feel just as you, that God should have destroyed the rebels on the spot and continued his purpose for a paradise earth.

Do you see any problems with that solution?

Well since we create all the problems ourselves for ourselves the paradise would be unnecessary to begin with. So if god were to destroy the rebels then he would also need to destroy you and himself.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Well since we create all the problems ourselves for ourselves the paradise would be unnecessary to begin with. So if god were to destroy the rebels then he would also need to destroy you and himself.

His destruction of the rebels would have been the end for you and me. That much is sure. Interesting that you would include destruction for himself. For, since his name transliterated means "He who causes to become", his purpose would have been effectively thwarted, thus denying his very personality. So one reason his judgement has been delayed is to prove his purpose.
But there were other issues. One was highlighted at Job 2:4, where Satan alleged "A man will give everything he has for his life.", thus claiming a(ny) man would serve God only out of selfishness.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Krumple wrote:
Well since we create all the problems ourselves for ourselves the paradise would be unnecessary to begin with. So if god were to destroy the rebels then he would also need to destroy you and himself.
His destruction of the rebels would have been the end for you and me. That much is sure. Interesting that you would include destruction for himself. For, since his name transliterated means "He who causes to become", his purpose would have been effectively thwarted, thus denying his very personality. So one reason his judgement has been delayed is to prove his purpose.
But there were other issues. One was highlighted at Job 2:4, where Satan alleged "A man will give everything he has for his life.", thus claiming a(ny) man would serve God only out of selfishness.

Only if you are attached to existence, is that true. I find it silly to cling to life. It is like having a rabid dog chained to your leg and it occasionally bites you and steals your meals. It causes you misery from time to time yet you love this rabid dog? It bites you causing pain and the wound festers for weeks. Yet you can't let it go? Nothing less than madness.

On the other hand, what do you expect when you deliver statements of damnation for failure. How can you expect a person to make a wise choice without selfishness creeping in? If you were to ask a person would they prefer torture or happiness which would they pick? I'm pretty sure only a small handful would actually pick torture.

Any time you create a being and then place expectations on them, you will ultimately be disappointed at some point.

It almost seems like the devil is god's wisdom. It is he who points out the failure in god's wishes. Like god is naive and needs something pointed out to him. But he gets a bad rap for challenging him to prove him wrong. Although many will claim that he will be proven wrong. I don't see it though. I have pointed out the same issues.

A god would have to be aware that it has created beings solely for the purpose of being tortured, cast down, tossed out, abandoned. You can't claim you have ultimate compassion if you are segregating beings because they refuse to accept the law. The ONLY reason they fail to accept the law is because they do not know any better. They are only existing according to what they know. To impose anything else on top of that just makes their existence a prescribed existence.

You must obey the law. To do otherwise you will be punished. Therefore a person decides. They become a mindless follower of the law because they fear the punishment. They are not good people because they have learned to be good. They are only good because they don't want to be tortured, abandoned, disowned. They are not actually good people.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

. . . On the other hand, what do you expect when you deliver statements of damnation for failure. . .

I think you have failed to take note of where the statements of damnation originate.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Krumple wrote:
. . . On the other hand, what do you expect when you deliver statements of damnation for failure. . .
I think you have failed to take note of where the statements of damnation originate.

The new testament? Jesus's parables. It doesn't really matter what the implications are. They are threats of failing to adhere to the law. These statements don't make genuine good people, they just learn to develop fear if they don't follow it.

"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned."

This statement doesn't make good people. It just makes them develop fear.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

So you say what you have read and heard don't make sense?
What you wrote doesn't make sense to me either. Perhaps because that is not what the bible really teaches.
And what else would you expect from retail preachers*

* Term borrowed from snood's astute observation of retail politicians posted here: http://able2know.org/topic/145429-75#post-5988532

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

So you say what you have read and heard don't make sense?
What you wrote doesn't make sense to me either. Perhaps because that is not what the bible really teaches.

Yeah yeah yeah, if I was given a penny for every time a christian has ever said that, I would have all the pennys ever made. This is ALWAYS the counter argument. But as I have pointed out many times the bible is contradictory. The old god is wicked and vengeful and then the new god is a hippy peace and love. They don't balance out nor make any sense. The only thing going on here is that modern christians have realized the old wrathful god is no longer appealing so they attempt to amend it with this hippy idea.

Just look at what Jesus has to go through for the loop hole to be created? He needs to be tortured and shed blood and be tortured for the rest of humanity to get their golden ticket to bypass god's wrath.

It doesn't matter what it teaches, it is the premise alone that is suspect. You mean to tell me a god who creates the universe thinks this is the best solution to save humanity from itself? It is just plain silly.

2 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

His rebellion was not known in advance.

Right. So, did God chose to not know in advance, or was it beyond his volition? In the past you've said that God chooses not to know. So, Is that not the case? Does Satan's free will, and also humans' for that matter, override God's almightiness?

Quote:

The outcome of the 'wager' as you choose to describe it, was foretold, however, at Genesis 3:15, after the fact.

To be clear, the wager I'm referring to is the wager you talk about between God and Satan in which Satan challenges God over which humans will follow one or the other.

Genesis 3:15, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel,” isn't a foretelling; it's an assertion of what God is going to do. Unless you're conflating "foretelling" with assertions of future actions.

[quote=neo]Do you use the term 'wager' as if there are some agreed upon terms, perhaps including some outcome favorable to Satan?[/quote]
According to your dogma, the terms were the humans who would follow either Satan or God during Satans tenure as "God of the world." In a wager the outcome is favorable to the house. I could use "challange" if the word "wager" is problematic for you.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

According to neo's religion, God won't torture anyone for eternity. He'll merely put to death those that don't pass his muster.

I don't know why neo doesn't just state this outright as a term of his position and avoid the unnecessary roundabout that results from this coyness of his.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

But as I have pointed out many times the bible is contradictory. The old god is wicked and vengeful and then the new god is a hippy peace and love. They don't balance out nor make any sense. The only thing going on here is that modern christians have realized the old wrathful god is no longer appealing so they attempt to amend it with this hippy idea.

No. Same God nominal christians and retail preachers are unable to explain; so they dodge

Krumple wrote:

Just look at what Jesus has to go through for the loop hole to be created? He needs to be tortured and shed blood and be tortured for the rest of humanity to get their golden ticket to bypass god's wrath.

Jesus' trials were not demanded by God. Satan could not be satisfied by anything less than the best.

Krumple wrote:

It doesn't matter what it teaches, it is the premise alone that is suspect. You mean to tell me a god who creates the universe thinks this is the best solution to save humanity from itself? It is just plain silly.

Perhaps you could audition for a role in God's advisory group

1 Reply

Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know