Do Christians Worship Different Gods?

Huh?What does any of that have to do with what I said?

My first reply to you was using your acceptance of a violent god as a foil for my argument that people create their own god based on what characteristics they will or will not accept about that god. I have no quarrel with the definition of sovereign, I was simply pointing out that you were making a bare assertion while at the same time claiming that I was being irrational. You are free to imbue your particular version of god with whatever qualities of a despot that you like. But please cease to proclaim that others are irrational for not swallowing that pill. Forgive me. For the purposes of discussion I am also assuming that I would retain my free will. But of course your god is also free to turn me into a pile of unthinking matter and punish me accordingly.Even if that day I am transformed into some pseudo-alive non-thinking entity, I am still free today to judge your characterization of your god. So now we have a situation where he not only is going to be my eternal torturer, but he will be torturing his own manipulated shell of my personality that is disallowed from have rational thoughts. This does not improve his image.Where does it get its validity? It is not required to be valid by anyone else except those that might read this and agree with me. It is perfectly possible that I am here all alone in my despair of this ruthless nature of my fellow man. That is exactly as valid as your supposed authority, ordained by some imaginary being. Those that have constructed a similar god to worship in their own minds may agree with you or not. Those that have not may agree with me or not. I know there are Christians who find your characterization of god abhorrent, and I am willing to bet there exists non-believers who are totally okay with genocide for reasons other than the sovereignty of some divine presence.The take home point for this thread should be that this god of your is in fact YOURS. A variety of people in this very small thread in this small corner of the internet have already expressed a rejection of your imaginary being in favor of their own imaginary being. You says that theirs is wrong, they say yours is wrong.To me, it remains simply the personal choice to accept certain characteristics of these gods into a personal ethos. From the same cultural template, some people do not go so far as to accepting the character of god as a mass murder. Whatever trappings you add in order to make it acceptable to you, you do go that far. But your gods are mutually exclusive. A presumed real god cannot be both a mass murder and not a mass murder. Someone MUST be wrong. I simply choose to believe that they all are wrong. Are you really trying to refute my argument that people have a higher standard for life than your god by showing that sometimes humans can be just as vile as he is? Of course people can be just as immoral as the gods they invent to justify their immorality. These examples do not rebut my claim that people value life more than the savagery contained within your holy book. These actions are popularly considered the scourge of our present and our history!
Civil societies have been born whole cloth from the ashes of atrocities by a people who have collectively decided that they wish to avoid those human caused calamities in the future. People today dedicate their whole lives to causes such as famine, wealth disparity, and the environment. Awareness of these issues are at an all time high for our world. Or have you not noticed the people of the world screaming about justice, sometimes even toppling their torturers when necessary. You really think that the revolutions happening around the world are a product of people concerned LESS for the value of a human life?
Your argument is incredibly disingenuous. I believe I addressed this above so Ill mostly leave it alone. Ill just say that you are welcome to set whatever standards you like for this discussion but just dont expect deference to them by others. If you require an exact logical bootstrapping of a proper non-religious morality then I can simply ask you to prove the existence of your god and we can both walk away very unsatisfied. I am not sure what organized religion has anything to do with the blatant contradiction in the ideas. This god who supposedly speaks to individuals apparently says very different things depending on whom he is talking to. Someone has to be wrong. In our little thread here, either you or GDR are in fact wrong. Or both for that matter. The best you can do is claim a superior revelation which is what you seemed to do above. How am I supposed to distinguish? Perhaps building a house of cards while you wait? Its not my fault that your analogy didnt work. You are free to dismiss me based on whatever standards you like but it makes for a pretty pitiful defense given the fact that I am not asking you to prove the existence of your concrete foundations. I agreed to consider his existence for the sake of the argument, not you let you beat me over the head with it.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Jazzns writes:

quote:

---

My first reply to you was using your acceptance of a violent god as a foil for my argument that people create their own god based on what characteristics they will or will not accept about that god.

---

That's the track I thought we were on. Does your option preclude the other option: I accept a violent God simply because he is violent?If not may I suggest we have a stalemate on this point until one or other side add leverage to their argument?-

quote:

---

I have no quarrel with the definition of sovereign, I was simply pointing out that you were making a bare assertion while at the same time claiming that I was being irrational. You are free to imbue your particular version of god with whatever qualities of a despot that you like. But please cease to proclaim that others are irrational for not swallowing that pill.

---

I am assuming you accept for the sake of discussion that God exists per Bible and you are arguing your case in the light of that. If so then the statement "God is sovereign" is indeed a no brainer and your response..

quote:

---

We are supposed to swallow that (the above statement) as rational?

---

...is curious. Of course it's rational if assuming God exists for the sake of discussion.-

quote:

---

Forgive me. For the purposes of discussion I am also assuming that I would retain my free will. But of course your god is also free to turn me into a pile of unthinking matter and punish me accordingly.

---

You are right that God permits you the freedom to generate alternative value judgements. It doesn't mean you are freed from the consequences of doing so. Nor does it mean that those value judgements are anything other than devices that fuel your rebellion.

quote:

---

Even if that day I am transformed into some pseudo-alive non-thinking entity, I am still free today to judge your characterization of your god. So now we have a situation where he not only is going to be my eternal torturer, but he will be torturing his own manipulated shell of my personality that is disallowed from have rational thoughts. This does not improve his image.

---

Your rational thoughts are derived from skewed value judgements (is the argument). When you are equipped (or imprisoned) with the right value judgements the same use of rationality will produce a different outlook.It's not that you won't be a thinking entity, it's that you won't be free to escape God's value judgements like you are now.

quote:

---

Where does it get its validity? It is not required to be valid by anyone else except those that might read this and agree with me. It is perfectly possible that I am here all alone in my despair of this ruthless nature of my fellow man. That is exactly as valid as your supposed authority, ordained by some imaginary being. Those that have constructed a similar god to worship in their own minds may agree with you or not. Those that have not may agree with me or not. I know there are Christians who find your characterization of god abhorrent, and I am willing to bet there exists non-believers who are totally okay with genocide for reasons other than the sovereignty of some divine presence.

---

I'm assuming us arguing from within the assumption of God's existance. Would you agree that the validity of your position isn't actual and that all conclusions (such a God a tyrant) are subject to re-setting once you are equipped with other value judgement?-

quote:

---

The take home point for this thread should be that this god of your is in fact YOURS. A variety of people in this very small thread in this small corner of the internet have already expressed a rejection of your imaginary being in favor of their own imaginary being. You says that theirs is wrong, they say yours is wrong.

---

I don't think that's much of a point to be taking home. It's as obvious as the day is long that alternate views of God are the persons own conclusion ( quite aside from one or others version turning out to be the case in fact)I was more interested in the problem you had with God eliminating sinners (genocide merely meaning alot of sinners are eliminated at the same time and place)

quote:

---

To me, it remains simply the personal choice to accept certain characteristics of these gods into a personal ethos. From the same cultural template, some people do not go so far as to accepting the character of god as a mass murder. Whatever trappings you add in order to make it acceptable to you, you do go that far. But your gods are mutually exclusive. A presumed real god cannot be both a mass murder and not a mass murder. Someone MUST be wrong. I simply choose to believe that they all are wrong.

---

That's fine.As I say, I'm interested in how you would parlay "God killing" into "God the murderer". Murder being an unrighteous killing.What is God doing in killing sinners (whether as punishment, as discipline, as his purposes in giving life to them being served, etc) that is unrighteous?-

quote:

---

Are you really trying to refute my argument that people have a higher standard for life than your god by showing that sometimes humans can be just as vile as he is? Of course people can be just as immoral as the gods they invent to justify their immorality. These examples do not rebut my claim that people value life more than the savagery contained within your holy book. These actions are popularly considered the scourge of our present and our history!

---

You seemed to be arguing that people have changed o'er the years. I would suggest they haven't. You also forget that this holy book contains a description of God's self sacrifice in order that people avoid his wrath and enter his blissful rest.Perhaps you've argued above how it is God can be considered unrighteous in anything he does so as to compare him to the unrighteousness we both agree is exhibited in man at times. Not all killing is unrighteous afterall.

quote:

---

Civil societies have been born whole cloth from the ashes of atrocities by a people who have collectively decided that they wish to avoid those human caused calamities in the future. People today dedicate their whole lives to causes such as famine, wealth disparity, and the environment. Awareness of these issues are at an all time high for our world. Or have you not noticed the people of the world screaming about justice, sometimes even toppling their torturers when necessary. You really think that the revolutions happening around the world are a product of people concerned LESS for the value of a human life?
Your argument is incredibly disingenuous.

---

I would suggest along with the author of Ecclesiastes that there truly is nothing new under the sun. People have been rising up against oppressors since time immemorial. The increased sophistication of their means of rising up is only matched by the increase sophistication of the means of trampling them underfoot.I wouldn't let blips up or down on a graph of current-moment history deflect me from the view that man at heart hasn't changed an iota.Quite how you can say "progress" after the bloodiest century in the history of mankind I sincerely cannot fathom.-

quote:

---

I believe I addressed this above so Ill mostly leave it alone. Ill just say that you are welcome to set whatever standards you like for this discussion but just dont expect deference to them by others. If you require an exact logical bootstrapping of a proper non-religious morality then I can simply ask you to prove the existence of your god and we can both walk away very unsatisfied.

---

The only standard is the assumption of God's existance for the purpose of discussion. And that, perhaps. basic claims are taken as an accurate reflection of the biblical position (you a sinner, etc.)-

quote:

---

I am not sure what organized religion has anything to do with the blatant contradiction in the ideas. This god who supposedly speaks to individuals apparently says very different things depending on whom he is talking to. Someone has to be wrong. In our little thread here, either you or GDR are in fact wrong. Or both for that matter. The best you can do is claim a superior revelation which is what you seemed to do above. How am I supposed to distinguish?

---

You could the difference in view between GDR and myself is purely the result of cultural influence and God-in-own-image-making. That wouldn't be an irrational conclusion from your position as an unbeliever. If you were a believer however (and assuming that both I and GDR are believers too) you would recognize that in broad lines we hold the position we do because we are believers and on details we differ - perhaps, in part, for the reasons you outline.What GDR and myself might well agree on, is that we recognize each other as saved people and that this disagreement isn't a central issue in the fact of our being saved people. We would agree that we haven't been saved by the theology we have come to erect to explain how things stitch together.The contradicting views we hold wouldn't be seen by us as the make or break issue you seem to see it as. We wouldn't claim our respective views to be obtained by a direct line to God - in order that you should attach so much importance to their being in disagreement with each other.(This point can be expanded to deal with the disparate claims of other adherents of other gods. Again, your view would be a rational view from the perspective of an unbeliever, as would my view, that of a believer, be rational in seeing all other gods as false gods.Again, just as I don't think a Christian is saved by his theology, neither do I think a person is necessarily saved or lost by their being a follower of another religion)-

quote:

---

I agreed to consider his existence for the sake of the argument, not you let you beat me over the head with it.

---

That wasn't my intent.It does seem though, that in order to beat God over the head for being a tyrant and a murderer and a bully, you have to assume he exists for the sake of argument. And that as soon as you do that, you enter the impossible position of consigning the basis of your complaint as stemming from sin.Perhaps it's just a discussion that can't find traction for want of enough (assumed for the sake of discussion) common ground.So. Do you think God is justified in killing sinners?

Never. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Let us take actual, recorded acts of genocide (not good to assume the bible as a historical document) since you see genocide as being god's way of ridding the world of sinners.

Are the individuals who led the campaigns of genocide acting on your god's behalf? Were they just causes? Were the people who died sinners? If so, why?Did your god actually choose Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin to do his dirty work? Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

hooah writes:

quote:

---

Let us take actual, recorded acts of genocide (not good to assume the bible as a historical document) since you see genocide as being god's way of ridding the world of sinners.

---

I see it as a way God used to achieve his ends. Eliminating some sinners was but one of them-

quote:

---

Are the individuals who led the campaigns of genocide acting on your god's behalf?

---

Dunno

quote:

---

Were they just causes?

---

Whether they were or weren't isn't the issue. That God permitted them to occur is

quote:

---

Were the people who died sinners? If so, why?

---

All people are sinners (bar one). It's part of their constitution.-

quote:

---

Did your god actually choose Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin to do his dirty work?

---

They strike me as belonging to the Pharoah/Herod type of despot. Opposing God rather than being directed by him. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Because we have absolutely no common ground from which to discuss the issue, I'll forgo asking why not.Thanks for being one of the few-if-any to at least answer the question. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

That's okay, when I post a message it is to a far wider audience anyway.You asked, "Do you think God is justified in killing sinners?"I answered "No!"Sin is never a justification for killing someone, regardless of who is doing the killing.A real God that killed someone simply because the individual sinned is not only not justified, it is evil itself and certainly nothing worthy of worship or respect and that MUST be opposed by any moral creature.If claims are made that the God is also the creator of the individual and also omniscient, then the God is even more evil, petty, without morals and not only must be opposed, must be denounced and castigated.Any God that knowing creates a critter that will get killed is just plain stupid, beneath even contempt.Any God so limited that it has to resort to killing someone because they sinned is just plain silly, weak, ineffective and ludicrous, and should just be laughed at, mocked, made the brunt of bar room bathroom wall scribblings. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Yeah, why is it that no-one even discusses the whole Israel/Palestine question? 'Tis a mystery.

Jar writes:

quote:

---

Sin is never a justification for killing someone, regardless of who is doing the killing.

---

Not even if God made it a condition that sinning would lead to death at his pleasure (whether you believe he made it a condition or not)?That would be an odd position for someone to take - that God should make promises and not keep them!-

quote:

---

If claims are made that the God is also the creator of the individual and also omniscient, then the God is even more evil, petty, without morals and not only must be opposed, must be denounced and castigated.

---

As if that would make a darn bit of difference..

So, let's see if I've got this right. If I attempt to commit some abominable crime, and I succeed, then I was doing God's will?

What makes you think that god would (or should) keep his promises?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

It makes a big difference, I at least would be behaving morally even when God is not.And yes, if a God makes that a condition then that God is so far below MY standard of morality as to be unworthy of my worship.It goes directly to the heart of this thread.I would not worship such a God.We are charged to fight the GOOD fight.We may not win, but we must fight.

I'd like to add my puzzlement to Panda's. Apparently you can believe in a god who can sanction actual genocide but who won't break a promise 'cos that would be bad.

quote:

---

Re: Everyone has their own god.
So, let's see if I've got this right. If I attempt to commit some abominable crime, and I succeed, then I was doing God's will?

---

That is why not all belief systems are equal. One must demand to see their resumes.