If God is good...

God can't be good. Why create a hell for unbelievers? To roast people for dinner? or just to make them suffer for eternity? The former would be inline with some pagan gods that I read about, and the latter would just be plain saddistic. Does he watch from some amphitheater like some other dictators of old? Yeah, yeah I know the old line 'we do not deserve to be in god's presence and therefore must suffer'. What a bunch of crap! Can you really believe that god will throw a sweet little old lady in a burning furnace for eternity just because she was brainwashed as a Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican or some other religious myth other than yours? I'd rather be worshipping a pantheistic god than a sick f**ker like that. How can someone assent to such brutality from one who burns you in hell for a false belief? This is just absurd.
If christian believe in this stupid idea of burning hell, how do you accomodate that with a pro-life stance? Can't abort a potential baby but you can burn somebody in hell for eternity (or just shoot the abortion doctor). Yeah right! Makes all the sense in the world.A simpler less drawn out answer to the question "Is god good?"would be "NO, because doesn't exist. He is a myth. In the same category as Zeus. So the question is non-sensical. Ask me something that makes sense."take care
Shaw

quote:

---

--Hell was created for Satan and his angels, you should actually read that book be for it is critisized. It is your assertion which is absurd.

---

What do you mean by absurd? Was I being too obtuse for you? OK. Let me clarify:
There are 23 verses in the KJ new testament containing the word 'hell'. Only one of them, 2 Peter 2:4, mentioned anything about satan or his lackies (the angels). So hell may have been created for satan and his angel friends but it will be used for me (and the little old Catholic lady) after I die. Did I mis-interpret? Don't believe me, here check it out yourself:Biblical Reference[Fixed too long link. --Admin]two of them stood out for me:Luke 12
4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?Mark 9
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenchedI see no mentioning of satan nor angels in there. But I'm not 'interpreting' it either. It seems pretty clear that I'm going to hell to burn where 'the fire is not quenched'.
I said that God created hell for unbelievers. I don't see where my assertion was absurd. Please show me.
btw-There were 30 results for a search of 'hell' in the OT. Most of these verses aren't about casting somebody into hell to burn in 'the fire that is not quenched'. That's probably because they weren't Christians.
I never critisized the Bible. I critisized a mythical god who would burn somebody in 'the fire that is not quenched' because I don't believe in that fairy tales anymore.
Now my question to you TC is "Did you read the Bible?"
Did the spine crack when you check out these verses? Mine didn't. Mine are well used (seminary student--at one time).As for the second part of your post, about the evidence crap. John took care of that one.
I'm now an atheist. Atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, nothing more. What that means is that not all atheist hold the same world view. All it deals with is the absence of a belief of a god. When I say that I'm an atheist, you cannot draw any other conclusion other than my absence of a belief. It doesn't mean I'm an evolutionist. It doesn't mean I'm an existentialist. It doesn't mean I'm a communist. All it means is that I think the belief in a god is irrational.
And with that out of the way I now have all the information/data you need. You may need a lab to try this. DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS! Look around and when you find him/her/it, point him/her/it out to someone close by. This experiment should take about 2hrs. When this is done publish your work and you'll be famous. Again, a word of warning to not try this at home, you may be deceived by the devil.
When I said to point him/her/it out, I meant the actual person/being, not his creations. I can see for myself the beautiful trees and the beautiful people he created. What I want to see is the actual supernatural being. Now that would bring me back to the flock!take care

​

[This message has been edited by Admin, 07-14-2002]

quote:

---

just be weary of the magnitude of your confidence in your assertions. Not only will you then sound some-what open-minded, you will also give yourself some lee-way in your credibility.

---

You'll have to explain this to me because I am somewhat closed-minded.
You said my assertions were absurd. I showed you that they weren't. I don't need confidence because my assertion was not absurd. It was staring you and I in the face.

quote:

---

Also, for those who say that they have to see God to believe it, is irrational, and if there is no other way, it is ignorant

---

How is it irrational to have to see a god to believe it? Please tell me. You base your religion of faith. There is no other way. You can say that 'this' or 'that' proves a god's existence but the only way to prove the existence of a god, outside faith, is through the actual seeing of him/her/it. Religion is based on faith. No faith--no religion. Find a definition of faith. Here's one for you: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=faith#4 deals with Christianity. Faith is not a reliable method of acquiring knowledge. The presence of ideas or belief's in your conscienceness does not constitute knowledge. Faith is a belief in the unknowable, the incomprehensible all of what reason cannot understand.
Now lets take a look at rational: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=rational
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=reasonSo if rational is 'having or exercising the ability to reason', then irrational is the opposite--'not having or not exercising the ability to reason'. Reason is--'An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence'.From these two definitions, we see that reason and faith are diametrically opposed. You cannot have rational faith. You cannot have faith based on reason. They are contradicting terms and thus mutually exclusive.
Soooooo...having gone through this...I say again TC --The belief in a god is irrational.
I'd like to hear about this other way for a belief in a god. I do not want to be ignorant. If you tell me I have to get on my knees and pray, that's not the answer either. I did that for 29 years. And here I am at 31 thumbing my nose at any idea of a god. I deluded poor children into a belief in God. I have to live with that for the rest of my life. I was in YOUTH for CHRIST, taught at Sunday schools, counselor at Bible camp and I was even trying to become minister. Since the day my eyes were opened (April 16,1999), I have been trying to learn everything that I thought meaningless in HS; physics, chemistry, calculus, and biology. I'm too old to go back to HS, so I make use of my public library. I go through life now with my eyes wide open. I am commited to the unswerving use of reason in all my endeavors. I have no use for the concept of faith.What is the difference between direct and indirect evidence, as far as this discussion is concerned. Is there a way to get direct evidence of existence of a god? indirect?Too tired to see anymore. Need to rest my some-what closed mind.take care TC

You win! I'll go back to being a lurker.

quote:

---

This obviously requires some degree of faith no matter where it is taken, no matter how obvious you may think it is because this is irrelevant to the question of indirect vs. direct evidence

---

Yes, I agree with you there. But no mention of evolution was ever made in any of my posts,in this thread.

quote:

---

This is my reasoning by which my assertion that if you have to see God to believe it, that it is irrational, is supported

---

That's not reasoning. That's the "They did it, so why can't I?" argument. Your claim is not supported. But, with that said, I think I know where your comming from though. I'll support your claim.Hebrew 11:1-3 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.KJV (italics added)So once you have physical evidence, it ceases to be faith-'the evidence of things not seen'. Faith is devoid of reason, and thus-irrational. It doesn't make it wrong, just irrational. Once you have a rational explanation for something it voids the concept of faith.Sooooo...since you have indirect evidence of a god, my assertion(that- 'you can't a god so they can't exist') is irrational, since it was based on the faith that there is no evidence at all. But you proved me wrong on that point (assuming your evidence is valid--which I'm doing).

quote:

---

Also, I know of absolutely nothing you would learn in your physics, chemistry, calculus, or biology class that should be ignored if you are a Christian.

---

I didn't ignore them, they were required courses, I said 'meaningless'. My thoughts back then were very ignorant. Although I did well in them, I never pursued those particular courses after HS. In University I took mostly courses in the arts to graduate with an HBA in English Literature. There was six years in between HS and University in which I only read bibles and ICR crap, nothing much to do with science. Evolution was a no-no, so I never bothered to read anything unbiased until a few years ago (yes, that was very ignorant of me).I did found what seems to be a good book at the library today. Here is an link to a review: http://www.nonfictionreviews.com/article1129.htmlI've only read a couple of pages so-far, can't really make a valued judgement on it. But the review was pretty good.