DEATH AND GOD!

Most, if not all, deeply religious people read with their "souls" instead of their brain. Thus, blind faith and belief in a god.I have already been told I would burn in hell... A number of times! Not only hell, but the "liquid fires of hell". A bit scarier, don't you think! Being told I am going to burn in the liquid fires of hell is a bit confusing to me.... I thought that only "god" judges people??? Edited by fjp8000, : Added to postEdited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

Most, if not all, deeply religious people read with their "souls" instead of their brain. Thus, blind faith and belief in a god.

​

I have already been told I would burn in hell... A number of times! Not only hell, but the "liquid fires of hell". A bit scarier, don't you think! Being told I am going to burn in the liquid fires of hell is a bit confusing to me.... I thought that only "god" judges people???

---

Hell is a false doctrine based on old religious customs. Though the word hell appears in many bible translations, other translations will read grave for the same verses. It all comes from the Hebrew word she'ohl' and its Greek equivalent hai'des, which means the "common grave of dead mankind". Also the Greek term ge”en·na, which was used as a symbol for eternal destruction. However, it is taught that hell is a place inhabited by demons and the dead are punished with torment.However, the scriptures do not support such concepts. In (Eccl. 9:5,10) We read that the living are conscious that they will die but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all. So, if they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.(Ps. 146:4) Also says that as a person dies and his spirit goes out, and he goes back into the ground and that in that day his thoughts perish.There are many more examples of the obvious contradictions in the doctrine of hell taught by some religions. But one this remains clear, the concept of hell does not stand to reason in the scriptures. Those who do so, make very crafty use of select biblical translations to support there own beliefs and nothing more.So you can rest easy knowing that God would not setup such a terrible arrangement for His human creations. There is no such thing as hell we can be sure of that since the scriptures disprove that belief and because life itself is bad enough. Edited by AdminPD, : Warnig

fjp8000,So that this thread does not become a moderation nightmare, would you mind editing your OP and adding the point of your topic at the bottom in bold.In Message 12 you stated: Third, the entire point of the post was to ask, "How can a merciful & loving god, IF HE EXISTS, "pour rain" on the innocent and the faithful in such sadistic acts of violence.If that is not what you wish to discuss in this topic, please clarify it for the moderation team in the moderation thread linked below.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

It's probably not a very good idea to use irony in an Original Post, fjp, so I think that Purple Dawn is correct in asking you to redefine what you were saying.We can all use irony or sarcasm elsewhere.It has to be remembered that, although nearly all EvC members are native English speakers, we come from a number of different countries, and three different generations in age, so there are cultural differences, and there can be a bit of confusion in understanding.Clarity in an original post is important, so that there's no ambiguity as to what we're supposed to be discussing.Although I am discussing an aspect of the O.P., I'm not sure if I'm on topic here, so enough said!

------------------------------------------------------------------
I see your point. Thank you.To be clear, the question inferred in my original post is: "How can a merciful & loving god, IF HE EXISTS, kill the innocent (Babies - born and unborn), as well as the faithful, in apparently sadistic acts of violence?" I am not interested in hearing, “It is a mystery”. Rather, I would like to receive explanation/s using logic.

Can I ask you a couple of questions?

Do you seriously believe that God could exist?

​

Have you had any exposure to any form of organized religion before? (as a participant)

Or no jerks.

Welcome to EvC. I see no conundrums here. The logic would be essentially the same as the logic that answers this question:Why would a merciful and loving physician submit innocent persons to apparently sadistic regimens involving toxic chemotherapy, invasive surgery, and removal of organs?The answer is that momentary suffering is only momentary, while long-term health and survival is long-term. And health. And survival.I am not a holder of the theistic views you wish to challenge. I just don't see you forcing any logical dilemmas.If one posits the idea of an eternal deity and an eternal existence for humans, it stands to reason that any suffering--any anything--we experience in this life is so fleeting that it is practically instantaneous in the long run. Anything that causes us pain does so only for an instant and then the worst is passed.If one posits the idea of an omniscient being, it stands to reason that this being will know what is best for us. This is a being that knows everything, period. It follows by definition.So I can't see that you've posed any logical challenge at all to theists. Your challenge is essentially emotional. 'How can a loving deity DO such a thing?!' It's the rhetoric of outrage.Not a bad thing to feel. It's honest. But it is a feeling.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

1. I do not believe that a god does exist and have felt so for the past twenty six years.
2. I was born catholic, attended catholic schools, attended Mass every Sunday & religious holidays, received communion on a weekly basis, married in the church, practiced Catholicism and was a staunch supporter of its teachings for forty one years. Only after taking a hard look at a number of religions and their teaching did I come to realize that, as was the case preceding Christianity, it is a burden put upon man by man. IE: A figment of his imagination and the need for an afterlife.
Throughout the history of man, he has always looked to a supernatural force to explain what he could not explain. Thus, the basic origin of religion.

----------------------------------------------------------------You have to look deeper into the question.
1. A physician does not purport himself to be a god. He cannot cure people with the wave of his hand. He needs science to cure people. How many times have you heard, ““Everything is in God’s hands.” Or, to quote the bible, “the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away” Job 1: 20-21 (KJV). According to religious belief god’s hand is in everything.
2. I am of the opinion that following is a paradox: “God” who is allegedly merciful & loves us, shows it via suffering while we are on this earth. I am sure that anyone who is dying a slow and painful death would disagree with your opinion that it is only for an instant . Even considering a promised eternal life afterwards.
3. You need to go back and read my post regarding omniscient. I said that, if he did exist, he is not omniscient and logically cannot be so.

But God, on the other hand, kills people. So an assertion that it's for "the patient's own good" or for their long-term health seems inapplicable, since they're dead. But it doesn't necessarily follow that this being will do what is best for us. And it, indeed, takes a failure of imagination on par with Candide to assume that every putative action of God has been for the best, and can't possibly be any better.

If a god is loving and merciful he would not allow "his children" to suffer and be killed on a daily basis... Mostly over religious differences.
Please keep in mind that Christians (as well as other religions) believe that god knows all, including the future. If so, why permit it? Why doesn’t he simply come down and say, “Enough is enough”?

Remember that the premise was not just the existence of an eternal deity. It is also an eternal existence for human beings.Individuals that exist eternally are never killed. They endure as conscious living identities. Their existence never ceases. The loss of a physical body would not be experienced by the individual--and would not be in fact--annihilation. Everything permanent about the person remains intact.Physical death, in the long (eternal) run, would thus be an experience more akin to losing a baby tooth. One casts off (with momentary anxiety and discomfort) a temporary part of oneself that one was going to lose sooner or later anyway. One feels relief after the moment is past and certainly no worse off. Life goes on. It's applicable because no death occurs. See above.My mention of 'long-term health' in this context refers to eternal well-being. That's what it has to mean given the premise. Physical health would be short-term by definition. True. An all-knowing deity is not necessarily an all-caring one. But neither is the possibility precluded. Logically, the question remains open.That said, it is possible that comprehensive and intimate knowledge could itself provide an adequate basis for empathy.(It's an anthropomorphic conjecture, but it's an anthropomorphic question.) Sure. But, as theologians have reminded us across the centuries, all discussion of 'best' and worst' uses the terms as we define them. Our perspective is infinitely more limited than that of any omniscient being. And self-interest plays a role. Defining 'better' actions of God is like defining 'beneficial' mutations. Context is everything.As finite beings we lack most of that context. We are naturally biased toward the present, toward life as we know it. Inertia, if nothing else, makes us protective of states we know and in which we feel comfortable. Life as it awaits us 800,000,000,000 years from now would hardly seem real by comparison. Such an existence, apparently unconnected with this universe and its phenomena, is not imaginable by us at our present level of experience.To a creature in utero birth looks like death. One exits the only reality one has ever known.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The beliefs rationally challenged by such events like tidal waves and genocide depend on the beliefs held.The reactions of individuals to the Holocaust has been touched upon. It's worth mentioning that while traditional Judaism presumes the existence YHWH, an eternal, omniscient and caring God, it does not presume an eternal existence for human beings, 'chosen' or otherwise. Some observant Jews believe in an afterlife, but many do not.In the case of traditional Judaism the premises are that (1) YHWH has a special relationship with Jews and protects them, and that (2) this protection necessarily manifests itself in human life as lived on this planet.A theological crisis ensues when vast numbers of innocent Jews are killed. The second premise stands falsified and the first is called into question.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

__________________________________________________________________RADZ, I should have checked your signature. I ascribe to the Deist beliefs. With the exception of "god" thing. One of the best roads to happiness is to greatly appreciate the positive things in life!.... This aside do you thank God or a supernatural being for blessing bestowed on you?Edited by fjp8000, : No reason given.