Board index ‹ Atheism

[Throw Away]

Is it better to be atheist or to believe in a religion outside of Christianity?

Basically, is a person more sinful if they believe there is no god, or if they believe in a god just not the one in christianity like if they’re Hindu or something.

[jimwalton]

In God's eyes, those two choices are both the same. In both cases you are rejecting the truth. Being religious is of no value in and of itself.

[Suitable A]

And even then that punishment is just that he won't hang out with us anymore. He happens to be the source of all peace, happiness, and life so that's a pretty miserable thing. But again entirely reasonable for him to decide that.

[jimwalton]

Actually, you have it backwards. He has a standing invitation for you to come join Him. His door is always open. He offers peace, life, and love. But if you won't come in and hang out with Him, He can't force you. He can only grieve at your decision and keep inviting. If you won't be reasonable and come into His presence, that's your decision and your loss.

[Yummy Yummy]

What about a person who believes in God and Jesus, but thinks that it was an immoral act of histrionics to choose that path to forgiving humans rather than simply forgiving us? So they believe the Bible to be accurate, but accept that God is kind of a jerk about certain things?

[jimwalton]

> What about a person who believes in God and Jesus, but thinks that it was an immoral act of histrionics to choose that path to forgiving humans rather than simply forgiving us?

It's sort of a strange question. God didn't choose an immoral act of histrionics. Reality is what it is, and God has to work within reality. It's not like He cavalierly made it up and then was stuck doing this weird thing.

Here's how it rolls down: God is life (necessarily, by definition, and in unalterable reality). To reject Him therefore is to eliminate life, hence death. It's not like God chose that; it's the only option for non-life. And if death has to be overcome, then it has to be overcome in reality, not by waving a magic wand.

Secondly, God is love (necessarily, by definition, and in unalterable reality). He is personal (unalterably), and therefore there is such a thing as personality, love, and subject/object relationships in the universe. This is reality, not a random template God imposed. So if you want to be forgiven, you have to come into a love relationship with Him. There's no other way. And since love is the basis for relationship, just doing the Harry Potter thing and magically forgiving all humanity outside of a relationship of love is simply not a choice.

Things have to conform to reality.

> So they believe the Bible to be accurate, but accept that God is kind of a jerk about certain things?

Wow, this shows your hand, doesn't it? It's not God who's being the jerk.

[Yummy Yummy]

> And if death has to be overcome, then it has to be overcome in reality, not by waving a magic wand.

God literally chose magic many times when Jesus fed thousands, walked on water, and rose from the dead.

> So if you want to be forgiven, you have to come into a love relationship with Him. There's no other way. And since love is the basis for relationship, just doing the Harry Potter thing and magically forgiving all humanity outside of a relationship of love is simply not a choice.

I’ve been told repeatedly by Christians that God loves me regardless of how I feel about him or whether I even believe he exists at any particular moment. A loving entity would save another even if that person didn’t even realize they needed saving. While that entity is under no rule that it must save everyone, a show of love would be to save even those people who do not realize that they would be better off by being saved. (Perhaps some people would not be better off by being saved, and that’s why God does not accept them into heaven? If you say yes, then I have a few follow up questions.). Just to tie up my point with the parent analogy that Christians often use (as it is a helpful example of unconditional love): A loving parent knows that their child would be better off by not running into the road, but the child really wants the red ball that bounced into the road. The child sweeps up the child away from danger because the child simply didn’t know better and in fact truly believed that he would be better often by retrieving the red ball at this very moment. The child cries, but later realizes with greater wisdom from the parent and with age/experience that the child was better off by being saved even when they would’ve disagreed with that vehemently at the time. (Another reason the parent-child analogy can be helpful is because it captures the huge disparity between God’s and humans’ levels of wisdom.

> Wow, this shows your hand, doesn't it? It's not God who's being the jerk.

If a character in a book killed 99% of humanity, seemingly condoned slavery, and commanded genocide, then doesn’t it seem possible that a reader might interpret that character as something of a jerk? Perhaps there are good explanations for those actions, but not everyone reads a long book and walks away with the same perfect understanding. You can see how a person could see God’s character in the Bible as mostly awesome while also sometimes doing some horrific things?

[jimwalton]

> God literally chose magic many times when Jesus fed thousands, walked on water, and rose from the dead.

You are seriously confusing sleight of hand and deceptive distraction (magic) with acts of genuine power accomplishing authentically real things (miracle). The two have nothing in common except the lack of understanding on the part of those who lack a means to explain them.

> A loving entity would save another even if that person didn’t even realize they needed saving.

You are confusing rescue with saving. Sure, if someone has slipped and has fallen off a precipice, any loving entity would do everything possible to save them, regardless of the desire of the fallen one to be saved. Easily granted.

But what we're talking about is a loving relationship. What you're claiming is that God should force you to love him no matter how unloving towards Him you are, and I hope you can see the absurdity and contradictoriness of that position.

> A loving parent knows that their child would be better off by not running into the road, but the child really wants the red ball that bounced into the road. The child sweeps up the child away from danger because the child simply didn’t know better and in fact truly believed that he would be better often by retrieving the red ball at this very moment.

Of course, of course, yes, but where the analogy fails is that you're talking about a child with no understanding of the danger and the moral development of a beginning. In your case, however, we're talking about a fully functioning adult who knows very well the dangers, is probably as morally developed as he/she will ever be, and who is quite competent to make one's own decisions, weighing the consequences.

> If a character in a book killed 99% of humanity, seemingly condoned slavery, and commanded genocide, then doesn’t it seem possible that a reader might interpret that character as something of a jerk?

Well, here is again where you are seriously confused.

• killed 99% of humanity. The flood of Noah was a regional flood, characterized by literary hyperbole. A region was judged, not the world.
• Seemingly condoned slavery. Incorrect. There is one verse out of thousands that "seemingly" condones. There are dozens that speak of its evils. God was against slavery, and anyone who reads more than just a cherry-picked verse would understand that.
• Commanded genocide. It is well-documented that the "kill 'em all" rhetoric of the ancient world was typical warfare rhetoric denoting "win a decisive victory." No Israelite army was wiping out populations.

There it's easy to see that God is not a jerk if one would dig in just a wee bit and stop reading the Bible superficially and prejudicially.

[Throw Away]

> Of course, of course, yes, but where the analogy fails is that you're talking about a child with no understanding of the danger and the moral development of a beginning. In your case, however, we're talking about a fully functioning adult who knows very well the dangers, is probably as morally developed as he/she will ever be, and who is quite competent to make one's own decisions, weighing the consequences.

Can you imagine a person who would NOT be better off in heaven? A person who would be happier or have a more meaningful existence outside of heaven or who would be better off being completely terminated as compared to life in heaven?
If heaven is what Christians claim it is, then absolutely NOBODY would be better off by not being in heaven. In fact, anyone who rejects heaven must be making a poor decision by all objective and subjective standards. Isn't that how perfect and amazing heaven is? What this means that anyone who rejects heaven must be acting against their own self interests and against any interests that could be good for anyone else. This means the person is NOT morally or cognitively developed, at least with respect to the question of accepting or rejecting God.

> Seemingly condoned slavery. Incorrect. There is one verse out of thousands that "seemingly" condones. There are dozens that speak of its evils. God was against slavery, and anyone who reads more than just a cherry-picked verse would understand that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

ONE VERSE??? Come on, buddy. That is an extremely dishonest statement. I'm sure you are well aware of God's law about only receiving punishment for beating your slave if the slave dies within a couple days. Or the laws about how to acquire more slaves. I invite you to step back from whatever post hoc rationalizations you have for these ugly passages. Take a moment, just a moment, to wonder if maybe these passages are simply wrong about what a loving God would demand.

[jimwalton]

> Can you imagine a person who would NOT be better off in heaven?

Of course not. Heaven is THE PLACE TO BE. It's always the best choice.

> If heaven is what Christians claim it is, then absolutely NOBODY would be better off by not being in heaven.

Correct, and agreed. Heaven is the ideal.

> In fact, anyone who rejects heaven must be making a poor decision by all objective and subjective standards.

Again, correct and agreed.

> Isn't that how perfect and amazing heaven is? What this means that anyone who rejects heaven must be acting against their own self interests and against any interests that could be good for anyone else.

Ultimately, yes, but this is what people do. It's a common human phenomenon, though. We tend to make decisions more by viscera than by logic, by emotion rather than by benefit. The more I watch humanity, the more I see that people see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, and act by "gut" than by reason. But that doesn't mean they are not morally or cognitively developed (as you say in your next sentence); it rather means that humans have a tendency to justify their moral choices and their thoughts by less-than-stellar reasons. It's not so much a matter of maturity or capability as it is human nature. The Bible speaks of it in terms of darkened minds (Rom. 1.21, 28) or blindness (2 Cor. 4.4), and I have observed that to be true. On this forum, I can speak logic and give evidence and people respond, "Well, it doesn't convince me. I disagree with you." Of course they do. But it's not immaturity or lack of cognitive development. It's because their minds are made up.

> Slavery

That's funny that you think you have to link a wikipedia article to me. Do you think I haven't had this conversation 100 times? Do you think I haven't studied the subject deeply?

> ONE VERSE??? Come on, buddy. That is an extremely dishonest statement.

Not at all. Let's talk. I've had this conversation 100 times. What would you like to talk about?

> I'm sure you are well aware of God's law about only receiving punishment for beating your slave if the slave dies within a couple days.

Ah yes, Exodus 21.20-21. A total misunderstanding. Ya gotta study it. It was not natural for masters to beat their slaves. In fact, it was rare. If they beat their slaves, they would not be as strong and healthy to work for them. We are not to think of the Japanese work camps in WWII.

All of the laws (Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) are casuistic, meaning it deals with a wide variety of case studies, which may or may not have been realistic or historic, but which serve as guidelines for judges having to make judicial decisions. They are often characterized by "it...then" clauses to give the judges principles by which to adjudicate. They regulate the general principles for governing society, for fair practice, and for treating people fairly in contentious situations. As persons committed crimes under varying circumstances, it became necessary to go beyond the simple statute like "Do not steal," for instance, to take into account such things as time of day, motive, and the value of what has been stolen (like Jean Valjean stealing a single loaf of bread because his family was starving, kind of thing, in Les Miserables).

The law codes of the Torah are not lists of God's mandatory moral commands, nor are they lists of rules to be obeyed. They are not legislation. They are better viewed as legal wisdom. They are a collection of legal situations and the appropriate judicial response to guide judges to make wise decisions.

Therefore, they are not intended to be read as rules, but instead to circumscribe the bounds of civil, legal, and ritual order. They are hypothetical examples to illustrate underlying principles, similar to how we use word problems to teach math. The things we make up (two trains are coming towards each other...) are not to teach about trains, buildings, running, or apples, but to learn trigonometry. So we also understand the laws of the Torah. it is to shape society, not to give a list of moral commands.

You'll notice that the text specifies that if a master injures a slave, he is to be punished in like manner (fines, appropriate compensation, legal action; Ex. 21.23-27) and the slave is to go free (Ex. 21.27). The slave is to be treated with dignity. If the servant dies, the master is to be tried for capital crime (Ex. 21.20). If the slave is injured, the debt is presumably voided and the person goes free (Ex. 21.27). With judicial guidance like that, beating of slaves was rare.

I'll ask you to notice that vv. 20-21 are a set. The teaching of v. 20 is radical: the "slave" is considered a person, not a thing (possession). They are considered persons with rights, not property to be treated as the master wishes.

Also, remember that this is casuistic law (hypothetical cases). Such things may never have happened, but they are guiding the judges with ideas for how to render verdicts.

There's a term that occurs three times in the text: naqam. It's a generic word for "hit, spike, smite, beat, attack, punish."

v . 20 "If a man beats his slave with a rod". If a man naqams his servant. This is pretty wide open to interpretation. Some Bibles translate it as "beat", but it could be much milder than that. It could be a whack for discipline.

If the slave dies from this hit, or attack, or discipline, or beating, the master is to be punished (naqam), meaning he is to be capitally punished for the crime.

But if the slave doesn't die, "he is not to be punished (same word: naqam, denoting capital punishment (from v. 20—same word). The master is not to be executed if the slave wasn't killed. It is thought that the loss of his slave (the slave might go free, depending on the injury [v. 26]) and/or the consequent loss of income (if the slave couldn't work, the owner could lose income) were deemed sufficient punishment for the master. If bodily injury resulted, as v. 26 says, the slave was to be set free.

"if the slave gets up after a day or two." This would indicate the master was only correcting him in some way. Sometimes discipline may be necessary, and the master is given the benefit of the doubt if there was no particular injurious or murderous intent. Here is where the judge can consider motive, method, and consequence.

"since the slave is his property." Unfortunate translation. The Hebrew word is כַסְפּוֹ, "money." Again, the suggestion here is not that servants were chattel, or property. The OT constantly affirms the full personhood of these debt servants. The servant is in the household to work off his debt. The employer (master) stands to lose money (כַסְפּוֹ) if he mistreats his employees; his hard treatment toward a servant could impact his income. This worker is an economic asset.

So we are to consider the principles portrayed here far more than any details. It's casuistic, not real.

At least some of the principles to guide judges:

1. The slave is a person with rights and dignity, not property or chattel at the master's whims.

2. There was a lex talionis situation here: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, freedom for abuse, death for death.

3. The master did have some legitimate authority over the servant to do what he was there to do. Corporeal punishment was not anathema in their society as it is in ours.

4. If the master suffered economic loss because of his behavior, so be it. No more was owed to him by the servant just because the master disciplined him and the servant was not able to work for a period of time.

> I invite you to step back from whatever post hoc rationalizations you have for these ugly passages. Take a moment, just a moment, to wonder if maybe these passages are simply wrong about what a loving God would demand.

So let's talk. I'm gonna guess you've read superficially and haven't studied the texts. There's really only one verse in the Bible, as I mentioned, much to your ridicule even though it's true, that we have to deal with, and that's Leviticus 25.44. But you don't judge God and their whole society on one verse, given the weight of evidence in other directions. But we can talk as you wish. I'm not being dishonest at all.