Even after sufficient proof, would you change that much?

[jgh7]

People debate back and forth about whether Christianity can be believed or not. But let's hypothetically say that whatever your requirements for belief were were satisfied. Perhaps the Christian God came directly to you and proved beyond doubt that the one true religion is Christianity (yes you're that special that he came personally to you).

So now what? You have belief, but are you really any different? Perhaps you will go to church, read the bible, say you're sorry for your bad deeds, and try to do more good deeds.

But do you really change fundamentally as a person from simply having belief compared to not having belief? Do things suddenly become more beautiful, does your personality change, do you become more happier and enriched each day as you live with your newly found belief?

[Divine Insight]

So yep, if the Bible is a true and correct description of this God's personality I would much rather die.

What if you weren't going to die but he was going to torture you for all eternity with flames as some Christians believe?

Well that's an interesting question to be sure.

To begin with I would tell him to go ahead and do his mean hateful thing to me and I'd just suffer the consequences. Of course, I'm saying this BEFORE being cast into a state of extreme torture and pain.

Perhaps after he had done that to me for a while and then asked me again I might be a "broken soul" who would do anything to avoid his eternal torment. I think we all have our breaking point where we could simply take no more.

The problem at that point is that even this God would need to do that the only reason I would be succumbing to his hateful tactics would be to avoid the horrors they entail. Me dedication to him could never be from a perspective of love, especially not after he has already shown how extremely hateful and evil he true is.

~~~~~

The question really is no different from the following:

How long would Satan need to torture you before you break and agree to obey his commands and support his evil plans?

How does replacing the word "Satan" with the word "God" change anything if they are both using the very same tactics to demand your total obedience and dedication?

So the real question is, "Could Satan torture you to the point where you would be willing to do anything just to get him to stop?"

This is a fundamental problem with any religion that proclaims that their God will condemn you to eternal torture for an unwillingness to obey his every command.

They basically create an evil God when they do this.

If this God doesn't want me to do nasty things, then why in the world is he torturing me in the first place?

I'm already MORE THAN WILLING to do good things. I don't need to be coerced to do good things. And if this God were omniscient he would already know that.

So the very idea that the Christian God would condemn me to eternal torture is an insane idea that cannot be supported. Unless the Christians want to claim that their God is no better than their Satan. That's the only way their God could justify condemning me, or anyone like me, to a state of eternal torture.

Christianity totally depends on having an extremely hateful God who cannot be trusted and is no better than the Christian Satan.

Also, this is one of the reasons I would reject this God. If this picture of God is wrong, then all God would need to do is explain to me that I have a totally wrong picture of him. He surely couldn't blame that on me. I didn't write the Bible and I'm by-far not the only person who has extreme problems with the immoral behavior of the Biblical God. And it's not even atheists and non-Christians who recognize these problems. Even devout Christian theists openly confess that they also have difficulties with many things they read in the Bible.

I've been in Christian Churches and I've listened to the sermons. Even after I have recognized that the religion is false, I still attended church services with my mother for her sake. And I've heard preachers preaching right from the pulpit of their own Churches openly admitting that many of the things found in the Bible are extremely difficult to understand and that we must "have faith" that God has an "extra-Biblical" explanation for why these stories seem so horrible on the surface.

From my perspective this amounts to nothing more than making excuses for a doctrine that clearly makes no sense on its own merit. Yet even though these pastors recognize that the Bible makes no sense, they are still willing to pretend that some invisible God exists who could explain away these atrocities and absurdities.

So this is a doctrine that is being "held up" by a belief that some external invisible character could somehow fix the broken Bible. Why it is that they can't see the folly in that idea is beyond me.

But on your point. The Biblical God would indeed need to threaten me with torture in order to get me to agree with his immoral principles if the Bible is a valid description of him. As far as I can see the only reason he is God and not Satan is because he just happens to hold the keys to greater power. That's all. It's certainly not because he represents a higher ground of morality.

Look what he did to Satan. He made him crawl on his belly and eat dirt. Well excuse me but that exactly the kind of evil curse I would expect a demon to cast. So right off the bat in Genesis Chapter 3 this God is behaving like an evil demon.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 19 by Justin108]

Wait so vague occurrences like serendipity is enough to convince you that the Earth Entity is real, but Yahweh himself coming down from heaven and saying "I am God!" would not convince you? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. That's like doubting the existence of George Clooney after having a conversation with him, but believing in Santa because "how else do you explain that magical feeling you get on Christmas Eve?"

My answer was related on the OP question. Your observation here is dubious and unwarranted and it specifically has nothing to do with either the OP Q. or my answer to that.

I beg to differ. Pointing out the rational inconsistencies in your response to the OP is quite relevant. There's no need to look for excuses to avoid addressing my point, Will. Just acknowledge the inconsistencies and move on.

[William]

[Replying to post 22 by Justin108]

I beg to differ. Pointing out the rational inconsistencies in your response to the OP is quite relevant.

There are no rational inconsistencies re my reply to the OP subject and content. Your argument that my theology and how I approach it, differs from the OP subject and content is besides the point, whether you beg to differ or not.

If you want to argue the rational inconsistencies between my approach to my theology and my approach to Christian theology, then start a thread on it. I am not willing to use this thread to go on that tangent with you.