What God Wants *Debate (Believers Welcome, But Be Warned)*

[Avatar]

Since I pretty much said that as an unbeliever, I'll stay out of Salothsar's topic, (unless he'd like to open it?) and because not giving an opinion is extremely difficult for me, and because the responses there have made it even more difficult for me, I've decided to start a new, but similar, topic. (Cail, you woulda won that bet man. 19 1/2 hours. And only because I've done my rounds in the 'Tank first.)

What I'm specifically interested in discussing here, (and I know we've talked about it in the past) is the whole question of heaven, hell, and who gets into either.

I'm going to take a departure from my usual stance here, and assume, for the sake of the discussion, that there is a god, and moreover, that he is the christian god as presented by the bible, and theoretically, by the various brands of faith. (Also known as denominations.)

Got that? I'm proceeding from the assumption that atheists (and even agnostics) are wrong. That god is a specific and independent entity as proposed by christianity.

Now to get the ball rolling, I want to address something that came up in the very first posts in Salthosar's topic.

Cail, if you remember, suggested that any faith would have access to heaven, but raised the question of what that would mean to the atheist who has lived a "good" life.

Cyberweez on the other hand, avowed that only those who have accepted Christ as their saviour can get into heaven, mentioning Jews specifically. (BTW, Judaism makes provision for "righteous gentiles," perhaps Menolly would explain the concept a little?)

To me, this raises a fundamental question about the very nature of god, and what it is that he wants.

IIRC, christian doctrine exempts the people who never heard Christ's message from eternal damnation. In oter words, if you lived before Christ, and lived a good life, it doesn't matter that you were never "saved." Only those who reject the concept of salvation through Christ after recieving that message, are condemned.

Now the fundamental question to my mind, is what is the most important thing to god? Is it that we love one another and treat each other well? Or is it that we accept and worship him?

Surely if god truly wishes not only the best for his creation, but also that no man should die, our actions as human beings ought to be what defines us in his terms, and should be the criteria for "eternal" life.

On the other hand, if the most important thing is that we worship and obey god, then our actions are less important, and god is interested only in our subjugation. (Or at least, that's the conclusion I draw.) And if that is true, then what does it tell us about the nature of god?

So what do you all think?

Does god want us to do good? Or does he want our worship?

Are the atheists who do their best to live a "good" life for their own reaosns, and not because god told them to, wasting their time? Are they condemned to an eternity of torment, (or oblivion as the case may be)?

Is eternal life a reward for obedience? Or for just and moral behaviour?

Let me have it...

--Avatar

[Prebe]

Disclaimer: Christians/Jews you might not want to read this.

Sorry Avatar. I will not contest one word you are saying, because (as is becomming a habit) we are in complete agreement. You put it into words better that I could ever have.

A small addition: I feel truly sorry for someone like Saloth who goes through what appears to be a deep personal crisis because of conflicts in faith and altruistic anxiety. I.e. Because he fears that God would harm others. I am in fact moved to tears, and it makes me furious of religion!Some would say, that he had not been paying attention in bible class, where they tell you what parts of the bible to remember, and what parts to ignore. As I have said before: God should have given us a second edition years ago.

[Avatar]

Aah Prebe, again we are in agreement.

Staying out of that topic is probably the hardest thing I've ever done on the Watch, where my propensity for well-meaning debate is well known.

I PM'd Salothsar, suggesting he might want to stay out of this topic if he's feeling delicate faith-wise, and I think I'm going to edit a warning into the title of this one, because I feel the same way as you do.

The frustration, the exasperation, the irritation at the sheer effrontery of a religion that forces that sort of conflict. It's one of the few things that I do feel emotional about. *shrugs*

And that is why I agree with Fist on one particularly important point: If this is what god really wants, then I'm not interested. Exclusion from the sphere of influence of a god like that would suit me just fine.

I'm very interested in seeing what Furls and Edge and Iryssa have to say on that other topic though. I hope they get in there soon.

Certainly I find their approaches to christianity much more palatable, (however much we might disagree on the fundamental principles).

You know, I feel the same as Edge does, only from the other side: I'm not willing to reject a concept out of hand just because it's a christian one. There are many admirable and important messages in christianity, which are, on the whole, shared with by far the majoirty of all other religions.

And I'll certainly go with the idea that many of the concepts have been abused by man for their own gain, as with so many other things.

But hell...

Anyway, Off to edit the topic title a bit. (EDIT: What do you think? Is it a little tactless? I'm open to suggestions. )

--A

[SalotHSaR]

A small addition: I feel truly sorry for someone like Saloth who goes through what appears to be a deep personal crisis because of conflicts in faith and altruistic anxiety. I.e. Because he fears that God would harm others. I am in fact moved to tears, and it makes me furious of religion!Some would say, that he had not been paying attention in bible class, where they tell you what parts of the bible to remember, and what parts to ignore. As I have said before: God should have given us a second edition years ago.

Thank you. I am moved to tears that you understand me. I may be wrong and far away from understanding, but the plain fact I mean to say is that I feel for the vast majority of all people who ever lived in all history that will not go to heaven & I very sincerely want to know their destiny. I'm perfectly happy with my own fate. I know it & I have no trouble with it. I fear for the masses because my love is to be toward my neighbor, my cityfolk, my nation, my world. Thank you for making me tearful in that someone else sees where I am coming from.

Avatar, thank you.

[Prebe]

I think the subject title is spot on Av.

[Prebe]

Thanks for stopping by SalothSaR. I am glad you did. I truly was moved, and thus had a hard time not writing anything in the thread you started.

The only thing I can offer, however, is the solace of not believing, which doesn't cut the cheese for you. And I could say what I think of other religions, which would not do you much good either.

You are obviously having a great degree of compassion for your fellow man, such as I have been tought Christianity. I am not going to talk scripture, I will leave that to your thread.

[Avatar]

Likewise, it's good to see you here Salothsar, and if you'd like to contribute in here, please feel free.

If it's any consolation, as I said earlier in this thread, those who never knew Christs message are exempt from "punishment" according to doctrine, (assuming they lived "good" lives), so that takes care of the "souls" of many millions.

It's only the willfully obdurate like myself who will supposedly suffer the torments of hell, regardless of how much good we do, how true we are to the spirit of christianity, (assuming that spirit is love and forgiveness) and how much we help and love our fellow man.

I just want to make clear as well that there is no mockery implicit in this topic. Simply a strong desire to know. A genuine confusion about the motives of religion in general, and god in particular.

As Prebe suggests, your compassion does your religion credit. But you are, I fear, apparently faced with accepting an unpalatable fact if you take as given the dogmatic approach that nobody who hasn't accepted salvation can be accepted by god.

Peace.

--Avatar

[Nathan]

It seems to me that what God wants is his own way.

He created us, and he carries on lording it over us forever, because he can. He's not content just to give us the gift of life, he has to take it back if we don't do what he wants with it.

If I were God, I know what I would want: Something to do/watch, to stave off the boredom of eternal existence. I'd make something, watch how it turned out. Then, when it finished I'd make another one.

I wouldn't demand recognition from my creations. I don't need it. I KNOW I am all powerful, I KNOW I created them, why should I need recognition from them as well?

[Avatar]

And doesn't that call into question the whole "free will" argument?

"You can do whatever you want, but if it's not what I want you to do, then you'll suffer eternal torment!"

That's not exactly a definition of freedom to me.

You make an interesting point about the recognition as well. Why? Isn't it presumtious at best to assume that god expects, no, demands worship/obediance? Does god have an ego? And in fact, I'd call it arrogance at worst. (Unless that old saw about god needing belief to survive is true, which isn't generally accepted.)

--A

[Nathan]

More good points! We've probably gone through all this before in various threads, but it always feels great to make a point twice when it's a good one! Conversations like this never seem to get boring though, do they?

I hope to have loads of these at university, lasting long into the night/morning

[Avatar]

...it always feels great to make a point twice when it's a good one!

Conversations like this never seem to get boring though, do they?

You're preaching to the choir, man.

I hope to have loads of these at university, lasting long into the night/morning.

You may occasionally, but expect to return to the Watch for the really protracted and involved ones. Believe me, you'll not find them anywhere else with even near regularity.

I'd like to mention something about that last post in the other thread though, but in accordance with the wishes of Salothsar, I'll not do it there. (Arrrg! )

Although it was indeed beautifully and persuasively put, it's inadequate to me. It smacks too much of hedging your bets. "If you think there is even a chance...why take the risk."

Personally, I'm pretty much totally lacking in any faith. I would like there to be something, sure. But what I'd like there to be doesn't bear much resemblance to the majority of christianity's views on god.

I'd rather take my chances honestly.

--A

[ur-bane]

You have posed these questions under the premise that there is a god, therefore my answer must also be with that
assumption in mind. This is actually not a cut and dry question, nor is there a cut and dry answer.
Let's think about this for a moment:
God wants us all to love one another. But at the same time he wants us to worship him; that as our creator and "guide"
he is deserving of worship.

But there is something else that always bothered me about the catholic god, Something I questioned from day one, and
never received an adequate answer. Now, this question of course depends on a literal interpretation of the Bible,
an interpretation which very conveniently is dismissed or claimed true depending on the needs of the argument. Right now,
my question requires that a literal interpretation is necessary. And the question is this:

Why did god need to put the Tree of Wisdom in the Garden of Eden, and then dangle its fruit in front of Adam and Eve?
"I made this tree, and it's fruit is the sweetest, but you are not to eat from it." Does that not sound like a trick
of the so-called "devil," rather than something "god" would do? What was the point? Why put it there in the first place?

Why does "free will" and "freedom of choice" require that there was something taboo to choose in the first place? That's
like buying a bag of candy, placing it in a dish on your coffee table, and telling your three-year-old not to eat it.

Of course, for a while it will be left alone, but eventually the child will eat the candy, and the parent will get pissed
off because the child disobeyed. You know what? Don't put the friggin candy there in the first place, and the disobedience
factor is moot.

But that's exactly what god did with the "apple." And that's not the kind of god that I would worship. Shame on him.

And because of that first instance of his true nature, I can answer Avatar's question with the response that it is more
important to god that he be worshipped and obeyed. Love one another comes second. The bible itself, literally interpreted
or not, clearly shows the priority of god. The Old testament (written first--or at least published first) speaks of a god
requiring obedience. A god that doesn't give a hoot what we do to each other as long as he is the only god that is
worshipped.
It is not until Jesus and the New Testament that the concept of "love one another as I have loved you" is introduced.
Now, hearing that phrase in the NT, and then re-reading the OT makes me wonder when in the OT did god show humans
that he loved them? What example was set by this god? None. Except for a select group of people whom god deemed more worthy
than others. It was more like "I'll love you as long as you worship me." Not, "I love you no matter what, but hope
that through the freedom I have given you, you will choose to live a life of love for your fellow man."

You know what I think? (Since I have to reply to this question with the stance that there is a god) I think that god is
laughing. I think we are mere pawns in his attempt to relive his boredom. I think he gets his kicks out of watching us
torment each other. I think if he were any type of god that I would worship he would never have planted the Tree of Wisdom
in the Garden of Eden.

With few exceptions, god has deliberately and maliciously set us up to fail in his eyes. From the Lord's Prayer:

"..lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

But isn't that exactly what god did with the Tree of Wisdom? Would there even be a need to "deliver us from evil" had god not set that ball rolling?

[Cail]

Once again, you're ascribing human traits to The Almighty. Freedom of choice (freewill) doesn't automatically mean that you have to like the choices. This is why I find it so exhausting arguing with athiests. They (usually) expect God to conform to their standards, not the other way around.

Now, to Av's question....

As I've said before, the basic message of the Bible is, "Love each other". Followed by, "Love Me (God)". Therefore, anyone of any faith who loves God (and I don't distinguish the Christian God from the Islamic God) and loves his neighbors can get into Heaven. I find it troubling that many Christians don't believe that, just as I find it troubling that any Christian would contest that Jews are welcome in Heaven.

But then there's those that don't believe. Av's covered those who've never gotten the message (but in this day and age, that's a really small number of people). I think it's perfectly possible to lead a good, "Christian" life (as I'd imagine Av does), and not go to Heaven. The only analogy I can think of (and it's a bad one) is that it's like the library. You can't check out a book if you don't have a card. The card's free, and anyone can get one, but if you choose not to, then you really can't be surprised or upset that you can't take a book out.

[Nathan]

Once again, you're ascribing human traits to The Almighty. Freedom of choice (freewill) doesn't automatically mean that you have to like the choices. This is why I find it so exhausting arguing with athiests. They (usually) expect God to conform to their standards, not the other way around.

I still don't understand why God had to put a specific temptation into the garden of Eden. There are loads of ways to betray God, you don't have to eat from the forbidden tree to do it, so why put a forbidden tree in? The only reason I can think of is a desire to prove how strong his hold over them really is! (look, I put it right under their noses, and they still didn't take it)

Why shouldn't we ascribe human traits to God? We were created in his image.

Although it was indeed beautifully and persuasively put, it's inadequate to me. It smacks too much of hedging your bets. "If you think there is even a chance...why take the risk."

Agreed. It reminds me of the argument that you've got nothing to lose by believing, but so much to lose by not believing. It goes something like this:

"If you were offered a £1,000 bet, with a 1 in 10 chance of winning, and the prize was £1,000,000,000 then you'd be stupid not to take the bet!"

What if the £1,000 is all your money in the world, though?

[Cail]

Correct, we were created in His image, but we aren't God-like (or Gods).

[Nathan]

Then why does he expect us to understand his message?

[Cail]

Well, apparently millions of people do......

[Avatar]

Well, apart from the fact that I refuse to stone my neighbour to death for his infractions, I do my best thanks Cail.

So I might as well not bother huh, Cail? My eventual fate will be the same as if I murdered, stole, cheated etc?

And it's not enough to love my fellow man, if I don't love god as well? That strikes me as pretty unjust, if that is the central message. I gotta agree with Ur-Bane, (and thanks for the long and thoughtful (and good) post). If that is true, then god cares more for our worship than for our actions.

And I don't think that there is anything wrong with ascibing human motivations to god. Certainly the bible does so. God is described as vengeful, as jealous, as loving kind and merciful. All very human traits. In fact, thinking about it, if we are made in gods image, then our traits are actualkly "divine." We would share gods traits if we are a mimicry of him.

Yep. I'd even go so far as to say that we have to ascribe human traits to him, because certainly everything that we're led to believe confers those same traits on god.

(Glad you made it here Cail. )

I agree with Ur-Bane, at least in as far as that's the way it looks. Like we're deliberately set up to fail, and that having failed, we can still be "redeemed" if only we obey.

--A

[Nathan]

Well, apparently millions of people do......

We can understand the things he says, but not the way he thinks? I don't see why there's a line drawn between the two.

[Avatar]

Haha, you guys are too fast. (And I'm working at the same time.)

I disagree on one point Nathan...The apple. Not to prove his hold, but to set us up.

(I see we even mentioned one of the same points about the human traits thing too. Although yours was a little more succinct. )

--A