[aldo_14]

Aside from the whole questionability of Genesis, that doesn't really relate to psyche, does it?

 Because, God is by nature (AFAIK) infallible, so any flaws in the human psyche and human nature would imply that we are different and hence has different thought processes (if you can apply the idea of thought to a concept such as a divine omnipotence).  Otherwise you'd expect God to be as subject to jealousy, thoughtless and pointless anger, insecurity, etc as humans manifestly are.  The only alternative is to assume Gods psyche - or the equivalent - to be humanly flawed, which to me would seem to run contrary to the theology.

if you're going to be arguing about God's characteristics, then please tell me you're going to acknowledge the Bible as being true... otherwise we can't really have this discussion

Well, we can pretty much prove parts of it aren't literally true.  Genesis primarily.  Unless you want to argue that the earth is itself designed to fake a different age and creation method from the bible, which would be rather odd I fell, and in any case is really outside the scope of this arguement IMO.

That doesn't mean I'm making any commment upon the veracity of it as a holy book, because if God was going to dictate the history of earth to people 2000+ years ago, He would use terms and symbolism that they could understand.  I think it's only fair in this context to propose that a divinely inspired book written by humans willl have some element of the writer as part of the nature of requiring comprehension both in the translation of divine concept to human concept and indeed for putting that concept onto the page.

That's assuming that demanding respect for something you created is a vice... since when?  If you developed a cure for AIDS, would you want people to look up to you and respect you? would you be wrong for doing so?

But I'm human.  The psychological mechanisms for desiring respect are in all likelihood evolved from the societal advantages of having it.  God doesn't, literally, need respect (AFAIK, unless there's some other theological arguement here).  Moreso, if you are doing something in a wholly beneficial and unselfish way, you don't care about the respect, only the positive aspects of it.  You may innately care about respect and reward, but that's essentially our flaw; I don't think you can take that characteristic of humanity to be one that is perfect, and hence one you'd expect to see in an perfect being.  I'm sure there must be something in Christian theology about giving without expecting in return; the parable of the Good Samaritan perhaps.

now imagine if you created the universe, the earth, and humankind. 

Er, obviously see above

Although isn't there a line in the bible that says it's wrong to know the mind of God?

[Grug]

God eh? >..>
yes

If god loves us all and wants us all to be in heaven, then why don't we all go straight to heaven?
do research on the purpose of earth.  i.e. read Genesis.  God originally created humans on earth, not in heaven...
Supposedly god loves all humans, god wants all humans to be able to be with him. (originally in eden) Why isn't it so? ~ see next points
We have to make our own choice in order to follow him hmm?
exactly. Humans were created with free will. which is why adam and even originally made their own (bad) choice. again, read Genesis
yes
Is he not omnipresent, all powerfull, and all knowing?
yes he is
thus anything is possible to god, even things beyond our own comprehension, god is infallible
Can he not create a way for all mankind to both have freedom of choice and go to heaven?
again, humans have to make their decisions. do things right, or do them wrong, it's their perogative
so god can't make the existance of both choice and everyone winning and being with him possible...?
I mean we're talking about a being beyond our comprehension here, can do anything he wants in an instant.
mhmm
Why can't he just instantaneously create a way for us to choose of our own will and go straight to heaven?
do you realize what you just said? "create a way for us to choose our own will"... that doesn't define "free will" lol...we're already able to choose our own will
nice dodge tactic? so god cannot make this free choice + all go to heaven situation? So god is not infallible, not all powerfull.
I mean everyone too. Every last human on earth. All in heaven. Why not?
free will
all powerfull being able to create any situation to be in existance
If not, then he is not all powerfull is he.
if i say i don't want to beat your ass. does that mean i can't beat your ass?  no it doesn't...
so this is gods choice? to torture human kind even when god knows the entire story already from start to infinite
If not, he is not all generous is he .
generosity doesn't mean you give everything to undeserving people. it means you're WILLING to give. doesn't mean you shoot out freebies to everyone and everything
If not, he is not so compassionate after all is he.
compassionate, as in, He understands human imperfection. which is why the door's open. again it comes down to how hard an individual is willing to change his/her life
this is god - knows how everything will end, can create life and existance. but for some reason can't figure out a way for everyone to be happy?
this & the fact man was created in the image of god... to me this suggests god is imperfect, which is a big dimple in any religous belief if you ask me. kind of kills the all powerfull claims and the reasoning why everything god supposedly said should be taken for fact and be taught as word of what life should be lived by.
If not, maybe, just maybe he doesn't exist in the form as the bible perceives him to be, as all powerfull and all knowing, and loving.
you're free to believe whatever you want.
except apparantly, that stem cells don't have souls. =/

[aldo_14]

Here's a slight digression.

Sin is the result of free will.  Stem cells / the unborn have no (capacity for) free will, thus cannot commit or have committed sin, and will definately go to heaven.  Heaven is seen as better than life; life is somewhat of an entry test to be worthy of Gods infinite love, etc.  So being alive isn't by any rational measure going to be better than heaven. 

So, who does campaigning against stem cell research, or abortion, actually protect?

My only thought is that if you see it as murder, you're trying to protect the doctor, mother, etc, from going to hell as murderers.  Except everyone is free to say '**** off, i'll do what I want with my soul', and most people are sinners in some religions eyes.  So i'm not sure what the point is, especially as the most fundamentalist Christians (who tend to be the most vocal protestors) would appear to welcome the rapture, i.e. ascension to heaven, so campaigning against it (generic term for these types of issues) on the basis of the unborn child would be denying that ascension to he/she/it (depend on you characterisation).

I mean, I can see a theological difference for the born, who can then sin and deserve a chance to repent etc etc.  but not for those without the capacity for sin.

[Goober5000]

So, by that logic, should a terrorist who massacres a Christian prayer meeting be commended?

It's something I'm not fully sure of either, as I think aborted children (and possibly all children who die before "the age of accountability", which is probably coincident with puberty) go to heaven too.  And Paul struggled with it when he wrote about yearning to die and be with Christ but acknowledging that he still had work to do on Earth.

I think the reason to protect children is to give them a fair shot at living life.  God could just as easily create people and divide them up into the heaven and hell camps without bothering with life, but I think he allows us to live life so that we gain experiential (not just theoretical) knowledge about our own moral character.  By living life, when we're sent into eternity we can recognize, "Yes, this is who I am, and these are the choices that justify my eternal destiny."  If someone is killed before their time, they're denied that chance to see how their moral character would have developed.

[aldo_14]

So, by that logic, should a terrorist who massacres a Christian prayer meeting be commended?

No, and I would have hoped that was obvious; the logic is the incapacity to commit sin, something which vanishes as soon as we are born (or perhaps as soon as we are even conscious).  I'm pretty sure one of the tenets of Christianity (correct me if wrong), is that everyone in some small way is a sinner, and that's the reason God feld obliged to send down Jesus to die on the cross as an example and sort of mass atonement.  Or something.  Basically, anyone with the capacity for free will has the capacity to determine their morals up to the day they lose that ability, and it's not something that should be taken by anyone beyond God.

That's be my interpretation of it, anyways.

It's something I'm not fully sure of either, as I think aborted children (and possibly all children who die before "the age of accountability", which is probably coincident with puberty) go to heaven too.  And Paul struggled with it when he wrote about yearning to die and be with Christ but acknowledging that he still had work to do on Earth.

I think the reason to protect children is to give them a fair shot at living life.  God could just as easily create people and divide them up into the heaven and hell camps without bothering with life, but I think he allows us to live life so that we gain experiential (not just theoretical) knowledge about our own moral character.  By living life, when we're sent into eternity we can recognize, "Yes, this is who I am, and these are the choices that justify my eternal destiny."  If someone is killed before their time, they're denied that chance to see how their moral character would have developed.

But wouldn't God already know, anyways, being all-knowing and thus able to see all possible eventualities  (because that's implied by omniscence and people having free will)?  I can understand life as being a test (the idea of any beneficial god creating people just to chuck them into hell would seem rather sadistic and thus I think that'd rule it out as a consideration here), but it's really a test of failure in my eyes; how much do you do wrong, and how clean can you wipe your slate, because it means more to be inherently flawed yet good than born perfect. i.e. it's not a test that taking reveals anything about except yourself, and if the consequences of such a test are good and desirable and consequential, surely they'd also 'occur' in heaven, what with it being paradise.

This is from the view of a non-theologist, of course.

[Sandwich]

...life is somewhat of an entry test to be worthy of Gods infinite love, etc.

We aren't worthy of anything but judgement and death. God doesn't love us because of who we are. He loves us because of who He is.

[aldo_14]

...life is somewhat of an entry test to be worthy of Gods infinite love, etc.

We aren't worthy of anything but judgement and death. God doesn't love us because of who we are. He loves us because of who He is.

fine, to be worthy of a positive judgement that lets us get into heaven.  Hell is still there as a punishment, right?

[Sandwich]

Nothing we can do could make us worthy. Which is why Jesus sacrificed His life for our sins.

If you're trying to get at the reason for existance, according to the Bible we were created to worship God. And yes, I'm quite aware of how "ego" that sounds. But so is rejecting our Creator and focusing on ourselves to the exclusion of all else. *shrug*

[aldo_14]

Nothing we can do could make us worthy. Which is why Jesus sacrificed His life for our sins.

If you're trying to get at the reason for existance, according to the Bible we were created to worship God. And yes, I'm quite aware of how "ego" that sounds. But so is rejecting our Creator and focusing on ourselves to the exclusion of all else. *shrug*

If life isn't a 'test' in some regard, how can there be any judgement based upon it? For there to be a judgement, there has to be some benchmark.  For there to be admission, we need to meet said benchmark.  Hence, worthy.

To be blunt, if God created humanity simply to be worshipped, he strikes me as a bit of a git.

[Sandwich]

All I'm saying is that nobody's worthy. I sure as hell ain't. Nobody I know is.

Life isn't any more of a test from God than it is a test from the authorities and the legal system. Rules were set down. Laws written. Keeping or breaking them is not a "test".

[Ford Prefect]

All I'm saying is that nobody's worthy. I sure as hell ain't. Nobody I know is.

I am.

[aldo_14]

All I'm saying is that nobody's worthy. I sure as hell ain't. Nobody I know is.

Life isn't any more of a test from God than it is a test from the authorities and the legal system. Rules were set down. Laws written. Keeping or breaking them is not a "test".

If it's not a test, then how can people be judged upon it?

 

[Stealth]

To be blunt, if God created humanity simply to be worshipped, he strikes me as a bit of a git.

LOL well i'm sure God could care less what you think; as do most people.

[Ghostavo]

To be blunt, if God created humanity simply to be worshipped, he strikes me as a bit of a git.

LOL well i'm sure God could care less what you think; as do most people.

And why can't we "care less" at what god thinks without expecting retribution?

[Ace]

...life is somewhat of an entry test to be worthy of Gods infinite love, etc.

We aren't worthy of anything but judgement and death. God doesn't love us because of who we are. He loves us because of who He is.

What sort of sick twisted existence is that? I'd take non-existence above the insane demense you view the universe as...

[Ford Prefect]

De contemptu mundi-- the nihilism of Christianity.

[Goober5000]

So, by that logic, should a terrorist who massacres a Christian prayer meeting be commended?

No, and I would have hoped that was obvious; the logic is the incapacity to commit sin, something which vanishes as soon as we are born (or perhaps as soon as we are even conscious).

K.  I knew you didn't mean it that way; my question was to find out precisely which way you did mean it.

I'm pretty sure one of the tenets of Christianity (correct me if wrong), is that everyone in some small way is a sinner, and that's the reason God feld obliged to send down Jesus to die on the cross as an example and sort of mass atonement.  Or something.  Basically, anyone with the capacity for free will has the capacity to determine their morals up to the day they lose that ability, and it's not something that should be taken by anyone beyond God.

That's be my interpretation of it, anyways.

Ya.  The problem, though, is that the Bible seems to indicate that sinfulness is inherent in human nature (c.f. Psalm 51:5 - "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful since the time my mother conceived me").  Ever since the Fall, humanity has been separated from God regardless of how many or what kind of sins they commit.  So a child killed in the womb still has a sinful nature, even before it is given the opportunity to deliberately sin.

At the same time, the Bible links children with innocence and salvation in a great many places, and nowhere does it describe a little child with the same kind of harshness as an adult.  So this has led a great many people to infer that there must be some sort of "age of accountability" before which God doesn't hold a child's sins against him.

But wouldn't God already know, anyways, being all-knowing and thus able to see all possible eventualities  (because that's implied by omniscence and people having free will)?  I can understand life as being a test (the idea of any beneficial god creating people just to chuck them into hell would seem rather sadistic and thus I think that'd rule it out as a consideration here), but it's really a test of failure in my eyes; how much do you do wrong, and how clean can you wipe your slate, because it means more to be inherently flawed yet good than born perfect. i.e. it's not a test that taking reveals anything about except yourself, and if the consequences of such a test are good and desirable and consequential, surely they'd also 'occur' in heaven, what with it being paradise.

Yeah, God already knows.  But we don't.  So one might therefore conclude that living life is strictly for our benefit - so we can see exactly how our moral character works before we enter into eternity.

If it's not a test, then how can people be judged upon it?

I'd say that it is a test - but that every single human who has ever taken it (except Jesus) has flunked.  So basically God is giving us a chance to ride Jesus's coattails into eternity.  All we have to do is decide whether to grab on.

And why can't we "care less" at what god thinks without expecting retribution?

Because he's God and you're not?

What sort of sick twisted existence is that? I'd take non-existence above the insane demense you view the universe as...

Ya, but it's not up to you, isn't it?

[aldo_14]

To be blunt, if God created humanity simply to be worshipped, he strikes me as a bit of a git.

LOL well i'm sure God could care less what you think; as do most people.

Are you saying most people could care less what I think?  Thanks.

[q]Ya.  The problem, though, is that the Bible seems to indicate that sinfulness is inherent in human nature (c.f. Psalm 51:5 - "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful since the time my mother conceived me").  Ever since the Fall, humanity has been separated from God regardless of how many or what kind of sins they commit.  So a child killed in the womb still has a sinful nature, even before it is given the opportunity to deliberately sin.

At the same time, the Bible links children with innocence and salvation in a great many places, and nowhere does it describe a little child with the same kind of harshness as an adult.  So this has led a great many people to infer that there must be some sort of "age of accountability" before which God doesn't hold a child's sins against him.
[/q]

Well, every arguement about the beginning of life - or perhaps more approprately humanity and consciousness - generally centres around when there is a capacity to think.  If we attribute a soul to something which can't even think, such as a blastocyst or (approx) pre-20 week embryo, there's literally no way it can commit any sin, even by thinking naughty thoughts.  So regardless of nature, there's about as much capacity to do wrong as, say, a rock.  My perception was always that the whole concept of life being some test or preparation for entering heaven (or hell) was centred around overcoming human nature by not commiting sin or at least redeeming that which is commited.

[q]
Yeah, God already knows.  But we don't.  So one might therefore conclude that living life is strictly for our benefit - so we can see exactly how our moral character works before we enter into eternity.[/q]

But this isn't going to be something we need see, is it?  Because if it is a big miss, God could insert the experience or alter time so it occurs.  I mean, ominipotence & omnipresecence, yeah?

[q]
I'd say that it is a test - but that every single human who has ever taken it (except Jesus) has flunked.  So basically God is giving us a chance to ride Jesus's coattails into eternity.  All we have to do is decide whether to grab on.[/q]

Well clearly there must be some 'mark' to pass if Hell remains a punishment.  It does remain a punishment, doesn't it?

[Grug]

*big breath*
Okay, just a few thoughts on observations I've made throughout my life.
Please don't take offence, most is just my opinion, and often subject to change.

Humans are the egotistical ones to think god would go to so much trouble.
Just look at history. That's where of the truth lies. Christiananity is ultimately a break off from Catholicism, catholicism originated from something else.
Most of the stuff in the two religeons are assimilated sections of other old religeons. The star, the goat head. Both parts of old religeons that barbarian celtics used to worship iirc. Missionairys came over and say no, assimilate it into their own saying its the devil, move onto the next tribe screaming for wealth at the moon.

We can keep going back, seeing the same patterns of civilization and religeon throughout human history. History is the ultimate source of results and causes when it comes to human patterns. Just look at the middle east and all through europe. All the past events. The corruption of the catholic church, the ultimate power they once held. All driven by fear btw. Inquisitors. Anyone read any of the translated books from Inquisitors and witch hunters?
My original thoughts would be they were plain cruel bastards out for some fun using the church as a front. Their diarys and logs suggest otherwise. They truely believed (or perhaps what they put on paper) they were doing gods work. Torturing and killing people, forcing them into confessions. Then absolving one another from sin.
Minds of the insane? Not so much. More monologues of minds that are brainwashed, warped, and trained for obedience.

Throughout history religeon has acted as a kind of tool used by the rulers of a province / country / nation to keep the populace calm, loyal, and most of all obedient.

If you were to raise a child and convince them to worship rocks all their life, would they go to hell?
Did every single soul that existed before christiananity or even catholicsm goto hell as well?
Every person who currently doesn't believe in religeon x but believes in religeon z or something else is due in hell too?

That's a lot of people. A ****load more than those who would be in heaven.

God is all knowing, surely he knows each circumstance, each point of view, each way of thinking, and surely he would find a way to accept and/or judge those souls. So mostly everyone can all go into his paradise. (assuming there is a god and souls and they are two seperate things)

That's the utmost single largest flaw in every single religeon that has the believe in our views or goto hell syndrome.
Religeon is a result and part of human culture. No more than a formalised way of thinking. (in some cases, gone horribly wrong)

Closest I come to considering the existance of god is by looking at science and by asking questions of myself, and observing those around me.
Philosophically and scientifically Time is a big brain cruncher. The biggest mind warp for me is time. Is time infinite? What was at the begining? Was there a begining, if not how does this work? Or, what if time is not infinite? Perhaps it is recursive \ loops aka something along the lines of big bang \ big crunch? Big bang theory\s? Is the universe infinite?
Looking at the universe, I just simply cannot believe that simple words from the mouth of any human can truely be the will of god.

[Kazan]

PS i don't think i've ever used a priori to object on this board, though I would like to know how Ford thinks that would be deserving of a pox called upon my house - my best guess is he finds it somewhat hypocritical: which would require such thinking to be  based upon a faulty knowledge of my reasoning and worldview

and telling someone they're behaving in a delusional fashion is not rude when it's true aldo

[edit]
oh.. good note on assimilations

Christmass: Christianized winter solstice festival (used to ALWAYS land on dec 25 until calendar reform)
Easter: Christianized spring fertility festival (um... eggs and bunnies... duh)
Halloween: Samhain (`nuff said)