Nectaris

This should probably go under the non-abrahamic religions section, but it does involve YWH and/or EL, the gods of Abraham and Jacob respectively, so I thought I might post it here.

Taking the particularly warped viewpoint that god has to punish sinners for their transgressions in life, which of the following scenarios would seem like a more loving god:

God A: A god who punishes those who transgress in life for all eternity in a pit of fiery hell or some other nasty place.

God B: To get to heaven, you must cross a burning field. If you have not sinned, you will not feel the flames as you walk to heaven. The more you have sinned the more the flames will burn you, but no matter how much you have sinned, you will get into heaven.

Which god is the more all-forgiving?
Which god is the more all-loving?

God A is EL/YWH
God B is Ahura Mazda

Dave

A3

Hi Nectaris,

Quite a topic for 6 in the morning, or is this just before you turn in?
Why take it?? It is someone else's interpretation, obviously not yours. It is not even close to the truth.

Regards
Adriaan

Nectaris

Adriaan (since I haven't figured out this quoting thing, yet)
"Why take it?? It is someone else's interpretation, obviously not yours. It is not even close to the truth."

Me (since I feel uncomfortable addressing myself in the third person)
Just something of particular interest to me.
I've been reading up on the Zoroastrian religion and thought it was a more compassionate way of handling the whole salvation process. I figured that was one of things that factored into early Xtian popularity—the believe or be tortured for all eternity mentality. The religion that offers the worst consequences possible would be the most popular, since a person looking at which god to worship would not only examine the consequences of worship but the consequences of non-worship.


Dave

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Again, one assumes that human beings are 'sinful', and that we need to be 'redeemed' through a process beyond our control and volition, in order to be 'worthy' of 'salvation'.

Even assuming a 'more compassionate 'God'' still means that one believes that 'God' would be justified in punishing some of us, but we hope that 'His' compassion would intervene on our behalf.

I reject the idea that I am somehow 'flawed', that I cannot and will not be recognized as a 'good' person, without 'Divine' help.

Why does it seem that so many atheists accept Christian premises, in order to try to argue against those very premises?

Keith.

Nectaris

Hi Keith,

Keith:
“I reject the idea that I am somehow 'flawed', that I cannot and will not be recognized as a 'good' person, without 'Divine' help.”

Me:
I agree with you and I have a great quote from
Robert Ingersoll to that effect:

Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion of the human race has ever been expressed.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll

I’m sorry that I have given the impression that I accept the Xtian premise that we are born flawed. It was not my intention to do so, since that is not my opinion. I was actually thinking of it as an argument to use against an Xtian who thinks that his or her god is all loving, when indeed there are more compassionate gods that one could believe in. Plus I’m fascinated with myths. . .

Keith:
“Why does it seem that so many atheists accept Christian premises, in order to try to argue against those very premises?”

Me:

Interesting question, and my answer is the only people I’ve ever debated with our Xtians, so I’ve argued on their terms, and I’ve grown accustomed to arguing that way.

In law, there is a motion for to dismiss a case on the basis that there is a failure to state a case upon which relief can be granted. In other words, even if everything the plaintiff says is true in his or her complaint, the case has no merit. When I’m arguing from the point of assuming that even if everything a Christian says is true, there still is no case. I don’t know if that makes sense or not.

Dave

Fiach

I don't think that I as an Atheist accept Christian premises at all. I use them as part of my various refutations of their mythology. Disproving or at least showing that they are unfounded on any evidnce, then makes further dissection of the bizarre Bible stories reather easy.

Christians have a premise that everything must be created by a grand creator. I don't accept that. It is illogical. One needs only ask then "who created the creator?" The barmy answer that he is self-created or always was can equally apply to the natural cosmos.

From this premise without foundation they build the Genesis myths of the Bible. Those myths are irrational in themselves. The fall of man is manufactured retrospectively to justify man's misery, and the new myth of a redeemer who will restore the primal paradise. Well, the so-called redeemer is a shabby example of a redeemer, and he bloody well fails. We are still in misery, no better off than before. Our only advance is by our own efforts and science.

The great God-man redeemer didn't know bacteria and viruses caused disease, electical signals in the brain caused epilepsy, or that the world was a globe. He thought sin caused disease, demons caused epilepsy, and from a high mountain he could see all the earths nations (sorry Jesus but not on a globe.)

I could go on regarding the resurrection myth etc. But the point is that because we quote the Christian premises does not mean that we accept them. We bring them up to knock them down.

I have been asked by Christians why I read the Bible so much. If I don't believe in it, why do I quote it? I quote the mass killings, atrocities, abuse of women, murder of infants, and genocide. I quote them for one of two reasons. The narrative may have at times recorded real events and the Israelites may have been vicious baby killers. Or it is all made up, and the writer is a terrible and hateful wanker who deserves no respect. If a God actually condoned such behaviour, then it is not a God but a demon, as Thomas Paine suggested.

The best and only real proof against Christianity are its own words and scriptures.

Fiach

Wiploc

. Motion Granted.
crc (Juris Doctor)

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: wiploc ]

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: wiploc ]</p>

Psycho Economist

First, I agree with the general sentiments that a question of choice between deities would be better suited to another forum (maybe M.R.D.), and isn't generally applicable to people who don't believe supernatural fair-weather friends exist.

I've also got to say it's quite amusing. I'd suggest putting on some asbestos undies and taking it to a Christian forum... but as soon as one saw through it, they'd tip the others off.

My own answer about which hypothetical superfriend was more loving would have to depend on what happens to the people who succumb (or give up) before reaching the other side of the burning field. If their fate is any worse than death, is either nice? Otherwise, choice B. Again, strictly from a hypothetical, mythological standpoint.

Also remember, the Old Testament by and large doesn't generally threaten non-believers or make any mention of an afterlife (except in the context of some post-exillic edits and septuagent buzzer-beater entries). That evolved into Judaism during the time of the second temple (how a nutter named Jesus got ahold of the idea) and, if contemporary Jewish attitudes are any measure, is on the way out.

The original point of the relationship of the Jewish god to their people was one of temporal reward and punishment, collectively and individually, based on piety. Throughout history, that is how most gods have operated.

spurly

Keith and Dave: Keith and Dave, I can see where you (along with Robert Ingersol) would get the idea that Christianity has a low view of humans. But is that really what the Bible teaches? (I realize you don't accept it, but if we are going to talk about the beliefs of Christianity, that is where we have to go).

According to the Bible, we were created in the image of God, and even after the fall, we carry a lot of that image with us. In addition, God has such a high view of human beings, that he allowed himself to enter into the creation, to let them know how important they were to him and how much he loved them. It seems to me, that the opposite is true - Christianity has a very high view of human nature, because our nature was created in his image and redeemed by the blood of Christ.

I can't think of a more loving, compassionate God than my Jesus.

Dave, maybe - and I realize this will be a stretch for some people on this board - but maybe those arguments are used because we were made in the image of God. We bear his stamp. So we realize that if we are going to get away from belief in him, we have to rationalize away that image we see every day.

Kevin

Shadownought

As far as I'm concerned, Christianity is superiority layered over inferiority. Christianity teaches that all humans are sinners, and that we all deserve nothing better than to be tortured for eternity; but at the same time, it teaches that humans are somehow "special" and paid special attention to by the creator of the universe.


<strong> I argue on Christian terms because pointing out the flaws, oversights, atrocities, and impossibilities I see in the religion is much easier that way. If I start out with the premise of "Assume God does not exist," I really can't get anywhere, can I?