Why worship a "god" that threatens you?

[OpiatefortheMasses]

I'm reasonably sure that to extort something from someone else would constitute a sin of some kind according to most Christians but why is it OK when the very religion itself employs it? Most of the Christians I've talked to over the years would describe their "god" as fair, just, loving etc. but extortion (among other things) really strikes me as cruel and manipulative. Is this a "god" that's truly worthy of a person's worship or adoration?

[Morphine]

Sorry, I don't know if this has been posted yet ...

We all have a great excuse for not understanding the things of God …

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways�,
says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts (higher) than your thoughts.� (Isaiah 55:8-9)

This is why we cannot understand spiritual things using our intellect, education, logic, reasoning, and etc.

Spiritual understanding (of God’s Truth) only comes through spiritual revelation by God’s Spirit.

Please notice God’s warning to everyone …
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.� (Proverbs 14:12, 16:25)

Good Luck to everyone in receiving God’s Truth (through His Spirit only).

Ok... How do you know that these scriptures were not written by regular men who wrote them with intentions to gain followers?

I mean to say we are unable to understand God, but we should just follow him anyway makes no sense. The only reason I would say someone should obey God is because of the threat of hell. But I don't even believe in either of those 2.

[dusk]

Peoples view on creation vs naturalism I have found many times depends on their preconcieved world view not the actual evidence. I find unimaginable complexity in nature (the human brain is the complex arrangement of matter in the known universe or the precise finetuning of the universe for any life at all to exist) evidence of God. A lot rides on what you see which is why naturalism is such a contentious subject.

I study the way brain works to rebuild it in parts and find that there are so many flaw in it that it is impossible to believe a perfect creator would ever have wanted it that way. Either he is not perfect or not done yet.
The finetuning of the universe is one of the oddest arguments. It says everything has to be exactly fine tuned to certain settings to work. If you have 100 different possible variations and only 1 work. The chance that the universe would like the 1 is 100%. It doesn't necessity a creator.

I would say religion is often a lot like the Here be dragons syndrom. The easy simple answer is usually preferred instead of putting some time into it and actually evaluating the evidence which would require some deeper research. An answer is simple understandable and somehow likable, I take it. This is basically the standard notion of many "spiritual" people that often don't stop at religion but usually add homeopathy, angels, leprechauns,...
And also the one notion outspoken Atheists disrespect usually and oppose. While the more educated and intelligent religious people rarely loose words on it, because too many of those are affiliated with the same denomination.
That is one side to religion but it is one that touches the way scientific knowledge is often dealt with.

Also the way evangelist with his holy spirit is constantly preaching just sounds ridiculous. Considering that the better educated among both groups (theist & atheist) rarely promote the same stuff as proof in such a way. Which I would hypothesis that lacking any such evidence from the "non here be dragons" group I would just put him and his likes into the the "here be dragons" group and ignore his comment until he learns to put some different text down, hopefully in a format that does show confidence in the content.
Why should I go and dump my girlfriend because an Astrologist prophesied that because of some Mars Jupiter square relation between our horoscope there ought to be trouble down the road and it will never work? I would just be an idiot, now wouldn't I?

[OpiatefortheMasses]

In my original quote I meant to say "not a slam dunk". I understand that it isn't easy to have faith in something that you can't see directly. There are many things humans have to deal with that we don't like, death for instance. The fact that you don't like being accountable to God has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. I find alot of non-believers say god is not real because they don't like the implications his being real means but this is not a valid argument. I sympathise with the reluctance of people to be submissive to a God as I held that view for a long time but I realized I was wrong. Your view of salvation is somewhat incorrect. I have never felt more free than since I was saved. Jesus said he came to set captives free from the law of sin and death (that is quite a different view than your description). You will never find an absolute proof for the reality of Christianity as a non-Christian, but speaking as a Christian my salvation experience was the proof I was seeking. Like the apostles said "If Jesus be not raised fromthe dead then our faith is in vain and we are more to be pitied than all men". I would say that "were not my salvation experience exactly what the bible predicts it would be then Christianity is merely a philosophy and of no more value and certainty than any other belief system. God is kinda hard nosed on the sugbject he says:

New Living Translation (©2007)
"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

Peoples view on creation vs naturalism I have found many times depends on their preconcieved world view not the actual evidence. I find unimaginable complexity in nature (the human brain is the complex arrangement of matter in the known universe or the precise finetuning of the universe for any life at all to exist) evidence of God. A lot rides on what you see which is why naturalism is such a contentious subject.

Personally, I've never been one for faith because can only get you so far. As you said about how not believing in something doesn't change whether or not something is true the same can be applied to believing in something. No matter how much one believes in "god" or "gods" won't change whether or not they're real. That's the reason I don't believe in anything that can't be supported by empirical evidence. I think that's the main driving force behind the reason most people don't believe in "god" or "gods". At the same time there are people who don't believe because they find some "gods" rather unappealing like the Abrahamic "god" and I would say they have good reason. Unfortunately, "gods" have had a history of being a flawed as the people that worshiped them which makes them entirely too human. You'd figure personality traits such as jealousy, wrath, being manipulative etc. would be above an omnipotent being but we've humanized them to the point that their not too different from people themselves.

As for my contention about "salvation" you have to consider all the elements. Who created the "law of sin and death"? If you're going by the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit it still shows "god" as the creator of both sin and death.

1) "God" created Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil (which can be argued as right and wrong) which would make them about as naive as small children.

2) He placed something he didn't want them to have (forbidden fruit) in a place where they could easily get it.

3) Allowed the devil in the garden to push the envelope so to speak.

4) All "god" did as far as a preventive measure was simply tell them not to eat it because it contained knowledge he didn't want them to have in which he probably knew they couldn't fully understand what he was saying since they we created without the necessary knowledge to do so.

5) Since "god" is all-knowing it's more than reasonable to say he knew the outcome before he even implemented it and did nothing to change it.

Those reasons alone put the "law of sin and death" directly on "god". When you throw the creation of hell into the mix it's more than reasonable to say that people are only saving themselves from the "god" they worship.

The whole argument of something being too complex to have not been deliberately designed doesn't work for me because it's like saying something is too beautiful to have not been deliberately created. It becomes subjective rather than objective. Whereas you could make those arguments conversely I could make the argument that it's not complex enough or not beautiful. I don't really think the universe if entirely that "fine-tuned" either when you consider it may be spiraling toward entropy or the presence of black holes. Honestly, this is probably a discussion for another thread but it certainly is an interesting one.

[1robin]

In my original quote I meant to say "not a slam dunk". I understand that it isn't easy to have faith in something that you can't see directly. There are many things humans have to deal with that we don't like, death for instance. The fact that you don't like being accountable to God has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. I find a lot of non-believers say god is not real because they don't like the implications his being real means but this is not a valid argument. I sympathize with the reluctance of people to be submissive to a God as I held that view for a long time but I realized I was wrong. Your view of salvation is somewhat incorrect. I have never felt more free than since I was saved. Jesus said he came to set captives free from the law of sin and death (that is quite a different view than your description). You will never find an absolute proof for the reality of Christianity as a non-Christian, but speaking as a Christian my salvation experience was the proof I was seeking. Like the apostles said "If Jesus be not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain and we are more to be pitied than all men". I would say that "were not my salvation experience exactly what the bible predicts it would be then Christianity is merely a philosophy and of no more value and certainty than any other belief system. God is kind of hardnosed on the subject he says:

New Living Translation (©2007)
"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

Peoples view on creation vs naturalism I have found many times depends on their preconceived world view not the actual evidence. I find unimaginable complexity in nature (the human brain is the complex arrangement of matter in the known universe or the precise fine-tuning of the universe for any life at all to exist) evidence of God. A lot rides on what you see which is why naturalism is such a contentious subject.

Personally, I've never been one for faith because can only get you so far. As you said about how not believing in something doesn't change whether or not something is true the same can be applied to believing in something. No matter how much one believes in "god" or "gods" won't change whether or not they're real. That's the reason I don't believe in anything that can't be supported by empirical evidence. I think that's the main driving force behind the reason most people don't believe in "god" or "gods". At the same time there are people who don't believe because they find some "gods" rather unappealing like the Abrahamic "god" and I would say they have good reason. Unfortunately, "gods" have had a history of being a flawed as the people that worshiped them which makes them entirely too human. You'd figure personality traits such as jealousy, wrath, being manipulative etc. would be above an omnipotent being but we've humanized them to the point that their not too different from people themselves.

As for my contention about "salvation" you have to consider all the elements. Who created the "law of sin and death"? If you're going by the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit it still shows "god" as the creator of both sin and death.

1) "God" created Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil (which can be argued as right and wrong) which would make them about as naive as small children.

2) He placed something he didn't want them to have (forbidden fruit) in a place where they could easily get it.

3) Allowed the devil in the garden to push the envelope so to speak.

4) All "god" did as far as a preventive measure was simply tell them not to eat it because it contained knowledge he didn't want them to have in which he probably knew they couldn't fully understand what he was saying since they we created without the necessary knowledge to do so.

5) Since "god" is all-knowing it's more than reasonable to say he knew the outcome before he even implemented it and did nothing to change it.

Those reasons alone put the "law of sin and death" directly on "god". When you throw the creation of hell into the mix it's more than reasonable to say that people are only saving themselves from the "god" they worship.

This is a very complicated theological topic that needs it's own thread. To circumvent the points made above and to trump them so to speak. Even if the details suggest somehow God did something that according to you is wrong (I am not agreeing that he did but this is a huge subject we don't have time for here) does that mean it is not true. Even if God does things I don't understand or agree with, yet if he exists and not embracing that fact means I end up in a bad place forever, Then I would be a self-destructive fool to deny the fact. If the ship I am on is sinking and I deny the fact because I do not like the implications, while all the lifeboats are loaded and launched, and I end up drowning I am sure I would regret my thought processes. I am used to arguing the existence or non-existence of God not the morality of God from a human perspective so my answers are probably not exactly what you would like.

The whole argument of something being too complex to have not been deliberately designed doesn't work for me because it's like saying something is too beautiful to have not been deliberately created. It becomes subjective rather than objective. Whereas you could make those arguments conversely I could make the argument that it's not complex enough or not beautiful. I don't really think the universe if entirely that "fine-tuned" either when you consider it may be spiraling toward entropy or the presence of black holes. Honestly, this is probably a discussion for another thread but it certainly is an interesting one.

This one is not as simple as you are making it. Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source. Thermodynamics (the most universally applicable and immutable law in physics) states that left to themselves everything breaks down into it's least ordered state. Since our brains and all of life is incomprehensibly complex and nature can't account for it then where did it come from. By the law of cause and effect the original cause of all this order and complexity would have to be several things omnipotent, omnipresent, non-material, personal, omniscient, and outside of time. This is a perfect match with what God claimed himself to be in the bible. The fine-tuning of the universe is a fact in that the parameters of any life permitting universe are a tiny band of an almost infinite band of possibilities. Even secular scientists like Hawkins, etc... confirm this. I am familiar with the counterpoints to this line of reasoning and don't find them compelling, I do not intend to sidetrack this thread but thought the info might be helpful.

[Goat]

This one is not as simple as you are making it. Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source. Thermodynamics (the most universally applicable and immutable law in physics) states that left to themselves everything breaks down into it's least ordered state. Since our brains and all of life is incomprehensibly complex and nature can't account for it then where did it come from. By the law of cause and effect the original cause of all this order and complexity would have to be several things omnipotent, omnipresent, non-material, personal, omniscient, and outside of time. This is a perfect match with what God claimed himself to be in the bible. The fine-tuning of the universe is a fact in that the parameters of any life permitting universe are a tiny band of an almost infinite band of possibilities. Even secular scientists like Hawkins, etc... confirm this. I am familiar with the counterpoints to this line of reasoning and don't find them compelling, I do not intend to sidetrack this thread but thought the info might be helpful.

Now, this is a heck of a lot of 'unproven claims here', and also a misrepresentation of 'the second law of thermodynamics'.

There are a lot of people that disagree with the 'fine tuning' argument. I think the 'fine tuning' argument is an application of the marksman fallacy myself. ..


I would very much like to see you support the statement that 'Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source'. That seem like one more of those 'unsupported claim' thingy's

[1robin]

This one is not as simple as you are making it. Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source. Thermodynamics (the most universally applicable and immutable law in physics) states that left to themselves everything breaks down into it's least ordered state. Since our brains and all of life is incomprehensibly complex and nature can't account for it then where did it come from. By the law of cause and effect the original cause of all this order and complexity would have to be several things omnipotent, omnipresent, non-material, personal, omniscient, and outside of time. This is a perfect match with what God claimed himself to be in the bible. The fine-tuning of the universe is a fact in that the parameters of any life permitting universe are a tiny band of an almost infinite band of possibilities. Even secular scientists like Hawkins, etc... confirm this. I am familiar with the counterpoints to this line of reasoning and don't find them compelling, I do not intend to sidetrack this thread but thought the info might be helpful.

Now, this is a heck of a lot of 'unproven claims here', and also a misrepresentation of 'the second law of thermodynamics'.

There are a lot of people that disagree with the 'fine tuning' argument. I think the 'fine tuning' argument is an application of the marksman fallacy myself. ..


I would very much like to see you support the statement that 'Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source'. That seem like one more of those 'unsupported claim' thingy's

I had already stated that I don't want to get bogged down in an evolution/creation debate. There is never any resolution and they are so boring. I can hardly stop my self from responding to your counter points but in respect for this thread I will restrain myself.

Dang it....
I can't contain myself if you will pick only one counterpoint I will respond to it.

[Goat]

This one is not as simple as you are making it. Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source. Thermodynamics (the most universally applicable and immutable law in physics) states that left to themselves everything breaks down into it's least ordered state. Since our brains and all of life is incomprehensibly complex and nature can't account for it then where did it come from. By the law of cause and effect the original cause of all this order and complexity would have to be several things omnipotent, omnipresent, non-material, personal, omniscient, and outside of time. This is a perfect match with what God claimed himself to be in the bible. The fine-tuning of the universe is a fact in that the parameters of any life permitting universe are a tiny band of an almost infinite band of possibilities. Even secular scientists like Hawkins, etc... confirm this. I am familiar with the counterpoints to this line of reasoning and don't find them compelling, I do not intend to sidetrack this thread but thought the info might be helpful.

Now, this is a heck of a lot of 'unproven claims here', and also a misrepresentation of 'the second law of thermodynamics'.

There are a lot of people that disagree with the 'fine tuning' argument. I think the 'fine tuning' argument is an application of the marksman fallacy myself. ..


I would very much like to see you support the statement that 'Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source'. That seem like one more of those 'unsupported claim' thingy's

I had already stated that I don't want to get bogged down in an evolution/creation debate. There is never any resolution and they are so boring. I can hardly stop my self from responding to your counter points but in respect for this thread I will restrain myself.

Dang it....
I can't contain myself if you will pick only one counterpoint I will respond to it.

Fine,.. just support " 'Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source'. " .. and I guess that would include a precise definition of both complexity and information.

[1robin]

Fine,.. just support " 'Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source'. " .. and I guess that would include a precise definition of both complexity and information

Complexity = order existing a significant distance from equilibrium in a system. Information= specified order, which also requires a decoder to be useful.
This is my informal understanding of the two. Is this close enough so far or do you want me to look up some formal definition.

Also I will respond to you only. I sware evolutionists have some kind of radar and they can smell a debate so I always get to debating 3 or 4 of you guys at once and the quality suffers.

If you don't mind saying, what are your qualifications in this field.
I have little, a degree in math and a senior status in electrical eng and secondary math edu. This means I can only discuss what I call the macro and intuitive topics associated with this field. I have found this to be sufficient but I am no biologist or chemist so I rely on what is apparent or revieled in the research of individuals more qualified than me.

Lastly is this conversation going to violate some thread specific rules?

[Goat]

Fine,.. just support " 'Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source'. " .. and I guess that would include a precise definition of both complexity and information

Complexity = order existing a significant distance from equilibrium in a system. Information= specified order, which also requires a decoder to be useful.
This is my informal understanding of the two. Is this close enough so far or do you want me to look up some formal definition.

And, how do you measure 'complexity'.. and please show a formal defintiion, and show that not only you are using them right, but your 'source' for this claim is. Your definition of information seems quite off.

This seems to be 'argument from vagueness'... where if you try to pin down what is actually meant, the definition changes.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

This is a very complicated theological topic that needs it's own thread. To circumvent the points made above and to trump them so to speak. Even if the details suggest somehow God did something that according to you is wrong (I am not agreeing that he did but this is a huge subject we don't have time for here) does that mean it is not true. Even if God does things I don't understand or agree with, yet if he exists and not embracing that fact means I end up in a bad place forever, Then I would be a self-destructive fool to deny the fact. If the ship I am on is sinking and I deny the fact because I do not like the implications, while all the lifeboats are loaded and launched, and I end up drowning I am sure I would regret my thought processes. I am used to arguing the existence or non-existence of God not the morality of God from a human perspective so my answers are probably not exactly what you would like.

Actually I would argue that the argument that I brought up is at the core of this thread because this is where the threat originated in terms of the Abrahamic "god". Most Christians say that "god" is just for sending people to hell for not "accepting his gift" or what have you but when you break it down it really just looks like extortion. If I created a disease and then later created a cure but only gave it to those who subjugated themselves before me I'm sure most people would view me as cruel and manipulative. Now, I being a human am prone to making mistakes but "god" really doesn't have an excuse. Whether or not any of this story is true really doesn't matter. I'm just making a critical analysis of the scenario as a whole.

As you said it would be self-destructive not to side with "god" if any of this was true. While I would agree (if it was true) it still shows that fear rather than love is the reason you're siding with "god". That doesn't make "god" look very good. In fact, it makes "god" look like a cruel dictator rather than the benevolent deity that a good portion of Christians try to make him out to be. By that, the sinking ship analogy only works if someone sank the ship and then offered you a life-preserver only if you subjugated yourself before him.

This one is not as simple as you are making it. Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source. Thermodynamics (the most universally applicable and immutable law in physics) states that left to themselves everything breaks down into it's least ordered state. Since our brains and all of life is incomprehensibly complex and nature can't account for it then where did it come from. By the law of cause and effect the original cause of all this order and complexity would have to be several things omnipotent, omnipresent, non-material, personal, omniscient, and outside of time. This is a perfect match with what God claimed himself to be in the bible. The fine-tuning of the universe is a fact in that the parameters of any life permitting universe are a tiny band of an almost infinite band of possibilities. Even secular scientists like Hawkins, etc... confirm this. I am familiar with the counterpoints to this line of reasoning and don't find them compelling, I do not intend to sidetrack this thread but thought the info might be helpful.

Like I said though, saying something is "complex" is subjective. Just because someone believes something is too complex does not make a case for "intelligent design". I brought up the 2nd law of thermodynamics in regards to our universe spiraling towards entropy which is more of a counterpoint to ID. It doesn't seem intelligent to design a universe that will ultimately burn itself out, does it? I also wouldn't say our brains are "incomprehensibly complex" or that nature can't account it came from. When you look at variables like natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, speciation etc. it becomes more comprehensible at least in terms of how it came into being. There may not be a why, you know? Also, saying we can't or will never understand something kind of puts limits on what we can learn. The only limits to what we can learn are the limits we place on ourselves.

Now, as for the "god" of the bible fitting the bill for the law of cause and effect, there are a couple of problems there.

1) While you can say it's your "god" anyone else can say it's any other "god" or specifically a "creator god".

2) Just because "god" is described as ll those things in the bible doesn't mean it's true. The argument hinges on the fact that the bible is correct versus any other religious doctrine which hasn't been demonstrated.

3) I'm sure "god" could be described as infinitely complex or fine-tuned so the same law applies to him as well. If your logic is correct something had to have created "god".

I'm all for infinite possibilities but without empirical evidence they just become speculation. Like I said, I think this is a subject for a different thread entirely but I would like to continue it. If you would like to start a thread on this and send me a link to it I'd be glad to partake.