Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing is self-evident: believers can't agree on what God really thinks. Even believers who accept the Bible as God's Infallible Word can't agree on how to interpret it.
I don't understand why the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe has such a difficult time communicating with his creatures. Good communication cannot be misinterpreted. Based on the amount of religious conflict in the world, I'd say that God lacks basic communication skills. Either that, or God finds religious conflict entertaining.
I would have to disagree with that. Good communication being properly understood is dependent on the willingness, listening skills and comprehension abilities of the receiver. Not saying you are wrong not to believe in God, Freak (I understand where you're coming from), I just don't think you've reached a valid conclusion here.
I would have to disagree with that. Good communication being properly understood is dependent on the willingness, listening skills and comprehension abilities of the receiver. Not saying you are wrong not to believe in God, Freak (I understand where you're coming from), I just don't think you've reached a valid conclusion here.
True, 100% effective communication may be impossible. Nonetheless, 99.999% of drivers stop at stop signs. And before GPS, maps were very effective at getting people to their destinations.
If there's a hurricane coming, the authorities must be very clear about evacuation orders. Ambiguous language about when the storm will arrive, what areas need to be evacuated, where evacuees should go, etc can cost lives. It is imperative that 99.99% of the population understands exactly what to do. And for the most part, the authorities do a good job communicating evacuation orders. If humans can do it, why can't an all-knowing and all-powerful God?
If there's a God who would torture people forever for not following his Plan of Salvation, one would think that the Plan of Salvation would be clear. God's Loving Wrath is certainly more dangerous than a hurricane. And yet churches still fight about the efficacy of Baptism, for example.
For example, is baptism essential for avoiding God's Loving Wrath, or is it merely symbolic? When does a person become accountable to God's Loving Wrath? At conception? At birth? At the "Age of Accountability"? As you know, churches that accept the Bible disagree on those crucial issues. Eternity is at stake, and God left us with no clear communication on those issues.
True, 100% effective communication may be impossible. Nonetheless, 99.999% of drivers stop at stop signs. And before GPS, maps were very effective at getting people to their destinations.
If there's a hurricane coming, the authorities must be very clear about evacuation orders. Ambiguous language about when the storm will arrive, what areas need to be evacuated, where evacuees should go, etc can cost lives. It is imperative that 99.99% of the population understands exactly what to do.
If there's a God who would torture people forever for not following his Plan of Salvation, one would think that the Plan of Salvation would be clear. God's Loving Wrath is certainly more dangerous than a hurricane. And yet churches still fight about the efficacy of Baptism, for example.
For example, is baptism essential for avoiding God's Loving Wrath, or is it merely symbolic? When does a person become accountable to God's Loving Wrath? At conception? At birth? At the "Age of Accountability"? As you know, churches that accept the Bible disagree on those crucial issues. Eternity is at stake, and God left us with no clear communication on those issues.
All excellent points. Common sense goes a long way. "Loving" and "torture people forever" do not go together so, to anyone who has not been indoctrinated with the "loving wrath" view of God, it is clear that one or the other or neither are true, but not both.
If the "torture people forever" bit was true, then would a God who was immoral/evil enough to implement it (or be bound to such a heinous thing by it's very nature) really care that how to escape it was clearly communicated to humanity? I think not. Very scary God, that.
All excellent points. Common sense goes a long way. "Loving" and "torture people forever" do not go together so, to anyone who has not been indoctrinated with the "loving wrath" view of God, it is clear that one or the other or neither are true, but not both.
If the "torture people forever" bit was true, then would a God who was immoral/evil enough to implement it (or be bound to such a heinous thing by it's very nature) really care that how to escape it was clearly communicated to humanity? I think not. Very scary God, that.
You have a seriously bad habit of making good sense simply. How in the world do people maintain their prejudices in the face of it? Give them SOME consideration, they don't WANT to know the truth.
All excellent points. Common sense goes a long way. "Loving" and "torture people forever" do not go together so, to anyone who has not been indoctrinated with the "loving wrath" view of God, it is clear that one or the other or neither are true, but not both.
If the "torture people forever" bit was true, then would a God who was immoral/evil enough to implement it (or be bound to such a heinous thing by it's very nature) really care that how to escape it was clearly communicated to humanity? I think not. Very scary God, that.
You bring up a good point. A sadistic God (like the one portrayed in the Bible) would probably enjoy the chaos and conflict created by deliberately ambiguous communication. For example, God could tell the Christians that the Muslims are worshipping a false God and must therefore be killed. Then he could tell the Mulims that the Christians are worshiping a false God and must therefore be killed. Instant bloodbath to watch from heaven! Maybe there's a halftime show.
I could actually believe in the existence of a Sadistic God. It fits the data:
1) Make life awful, but make reproduction feel really good.
2) Make lots of diseases and natural disasters.
3) Make survival require the killing of other living things.
4) Make our primary energy source give off a gas that eventually cooks us to death with global warming.
5) Etc.
But it seems simpler to just assume no God at all.
Not true. God is more than willing to have a conversation. God does not like being contained in an ancient book. The idea that God only speaks within the pages of a book defies logic.
No one is denying that God speaks to people. However, His message that first came through the prophets, then Jesus and now holy scripture, remains unchanged. If you believe God is telling you something that disagrees with any of those things, it ain't from God!
You bring up a good point. A sadistic God (like the one portrayed in the Bible) would probably enjoy the chaos and conflict created by deliberately ambiguous communication. For example, God could tell the Christians that the Muslims are worshipping a false God and must therefore be killed. Then he could tell the Mulims that the Christians are worshiping a false God and must therefore be killed. Instant bloodbath to watch from heaven! Maybe there's a halftime show.
I could actually believe in the existence of a Sadistic God. It fits the data:
1) Make life awful, but make reproduction feel really good.
2) Make lots of diseases and natural disasters.
3) Make survival require the killing of other living things.
4) Make our primary energy source give off a gas that eventually cooks us to death with global warming.
5) Etc.
But it seems simpler to just assume no God at all.
I absolutely understand your conclusion. It is why I find the "atheists just hate God" meme to be off the mark. Atheism, in essence, is a way of letting God off the hook from such religious views of it, because (among other reasons) atheists may simply not be willing to ascribe such unconscionable evil to a being who, if it exists, is responsible for our very existence.
No one is denying that God speaks to people. However, His message that first came through the prophets, then Jesus and now holy scripture, remains unchanged. If you believe God is telling you something that disagrees with any of those things, it ain't from God!
If what is coming from the ancient books contridicts God's spirit of LOVE, it ain't from any god..
One thing is self-evident: believers can't agree on what God really thinks. Even believers who accept the Bible as God's Infallible Word can't agree on how to interpret it.
I don't understand why the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe has such a difficult time communicating with his creatures. Good communication cannot be misinterpreted. Based on the amount of religious conflict in the world, I'd say that God lacks basic communication skills. Either that, or God finds religious conflict entertaining.
It doesn't change who God is.
People generally see things differently whether it's about God or most other things. It's not the end of the world. It does not deny God's existence.
If we agreed on everything, the complaint would be that we copy off of each other.
God communicates Himself just fine through the Bible. God gives us the freedom to misinterpret Him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Loving" and "torture people forever" do not go together so, to anyone who has not been indoctrinated with the "loving wrath" view of God, it is clear that one or the other or neither are true, but not both. 
