Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 2 votes

God = Selfish, Needy & Narcissistic?


  • Please log in to reply
319 replies to this topic

#31    rusting

rusting

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Joined:30 Aug 2011

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:12 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 07 May 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

As someone who believes God had specific reasons for setting up the universe the way He did, I am interested in these kinds of conclusions.

View PostIamsSon, on 07 May 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Why did God do what He did? To a certain degree this is unanswerable because we don't know

Arent you contradicting yourself here? First you say God had specific reasons for setting up the universe the way he did..then you do on to say we dont know why He did it...you might say "believing" and "knowing" are two different things..you are right...but just as you "believe" God had specific reasons, the OP does not believe that God had any specific reasons (apart from for what he says later on) ohh and can you provide the logic/reasoning process that leads you to believe that God had any "specific" reasons??

View PostIamsSon, on 07 May 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Do parents require their children to say, "Please" and "Thank you" to them because they are selfish and self-centered, and get a kick out of taking advantage of their weakness for their own glory?

You believe parents are taking advantage of their children's weakness by teaching them manners? Read similar arguments in a couple of other comments...parents trying to teach their children manners is not the same as God requiring His followers to worship Him. According to Christianity, God requires Christians to attend mass at least once a week..Sunday (not a Christian but assuming this is true) According to Islam, God requires all of His followers to worship Him five times a week...i dont think parents want their children to worship them once a week or five times a day? So clearly your argument to that specific point is not at all logical.


#32    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,909 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:24 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 07 May 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Do parents require their children to say, "Please" and "Thank you" to them because they are selfish and self-centered, and get a kick out of taking advantage of their weakness for their own glory?  NO!  Parents do this to teach their children how to comport themselves in society.  God does the same.

Ah but (the christian) god does something that parents do not. He seriously says that if you don't do what I say, I will murder you. How many parents do you know that would seriously kill their children for not doing what they say?

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#33    GoSC

GoSC

    HOSEA 1:10; 2:23

  • Member
  • 2,615 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Silver Mountain

Posted 07 May 2012 - 10:12 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 07 May 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

So when he regrets thoughts of wiping out his people, it was a good thought he regretted?

No, because Satan rebels against God, bringing suffering and curses and ultimately destruction down upon humankind.

"I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times he shall show, WHO IS THE BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTE, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen" (I Tim 6:13-16).

#34    Euphorbia

Euphorbia

    Odd Plant Grower

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,258 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere east of San Francisco

  • You can't just choose to believe something.

    Believing in something doesn't make it true.

Posted 07 May 2012 - 10:43 PM

View Postdside, on 07 May 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

No, because Satan rebels against God, bringing suffering and curses and ultimately destruction down upon humankind.

So, your god's not really the one in control then, is he? Because if god really had control he could make Satan just disappear at will.....right?

Get three coffins ready.

My mistake, four coffins.

Separation of corporation and state!

#35    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 08 May 2012 - 12:49 AM

Eight Bits: Let us apply the Chloe test, that that which is "nonsensical and pointless" and yet spoken as if it were the very height of applicable common sense, is psychologically revealing. Jesus is improvising an ego-defense here. Judas is right. Jesus knows this, and knows that ego-inflation is dangerous ('You will not always have me"), but cannot help himself. It just feels so damned good to be the Lord, Master of Life and Death, and hurts so bad to be reminded that the mission isn't about him. He's dead within the week.

Vatic: I found your ideas interesting and provoking. I want to remove the narcissistic paprdigm from the equation and look at this another way:

Martha, Mary, Lazerus and Jesus were close familar friends who were openly casual and relaxed with each other rather than formal. Jesus had told Martha previously that she was fussing about serving when she ought to be doing like Mary, taking advantage ofr the time they have together here and now. It is a point about capitalizing on the greatest benefit of the preciousness of the rare moment. Mary was not serving, but listening to Jesus sitting at his feet. We can see that Mary in particular was focused on Jesus as a person.

Later after jesus had raised lazerus from the dead, the group is again together. Again Mary is focusing on Jesus. Imagine what mary was feeling toward Jesus. Her dear friend had raised her brother from the dead. Yet she saw in Jesus a foreboding. She saw a man with anxiety. Jesus was already convinced and aware of the nearness of his impending death. Was Mary picking this up in her focus upon him? Was she sensitive to a need for comfort of the man she most admired in life, for whom she was in complete awe and love of?

In the room was a man raised from the dead by Jesus. Was he the very present beneficiary of the payment of take death in another's place that Jesus was about to make. Was the presense of Lazerus serving as a reminding goad and motivation to continue toward the mission of the cross for Jesus. What did Jesus feel each time he looked at the man he was going to take his place for in death. Jesus faces a horror, yet he sees the joy he brings in his friends over Lazerous. Jesus knew the time was very precious and he was speaking of and facing his own death.

Mary again siezes the moment with full appreciation of Jesus. She is focused fully upon him and feels his pains and she simply has to do something for him in her utter dedication. Mary is resigned to Jesus departure. But her love compels her grand gesture. MAry's action speak, "If you must go I will anoint you with the ritual oils myself with all my being and soul." Mary in her sensitivity and love breaks the spiknard and performs the act in utter loyalty to Jesus. The time was so precious. Jesus was needing their love right now. He was going away in an ordeal to face.

Now I ask you is there really a narsissitic element here, or are we projecting it? I see nothing but a man facing death and needing his closest most loving friends to comfort him. Who would deny a man his final comforts of love? Judas was being the utterly combative rationalist in his social ineptitude and insensitivity. Judas was being the consumate cynic at a time of foreboding, fear, greif and final moments. Judas was thinking of himself and was perhaps the only narcissist in the event. Utterly insensitive to others emotional needs, thinking of the profit he is losing when the Lord is ritually anointed for death by his dearest friend Mary who is ready to serve him even in his death. Imagine what personal sacrifice Jesus felt when he looked over at his friend Lazerus, living again because of him and what he is about to do. I just don't see the narcissist. I see a man that IS the mission and that is to face death for others like Lazerus in their place.


#36    GoSC

GoSC

    HOSEA 1:10; 2:23

  • Member
  • 2,615 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Silver Mountain

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:38 AM

View PostEuphorbia, on 07 May 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

So, your god's not really the one in control then, is he? Because if god really had control he could make Satan just disappear at will.....right?

No, he is in control. But since original sin, we have become children of the devil and it is his works that are evident throughout the Earth. Some are destined for salvation, some are destined for destruction. The devil creates unbelief and lulls the complacent to sleep.

"I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times he shall show, WHO IS THE BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTE, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen" (I Tim 6:13-16).

#37    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,082 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:59 AM

Hello, Vatic. Welcome aboard.

Quote

I found your ideas interesting and provoking. I want to remove the narcissistic paprdigm from the equation and look at this another way:
Thank you for the kind words.

The oil is Mary's to do with as she pleases. The valid issue raised by Judas is Jesus' consumption of the gift, rather than applying the proceeds of its sale to the mission. The staging of the scene is vague. It is possible that Judas confronted both Jesus and Mary, in which case, he erred to confront Mary, his hostess, and Jesus is justified to correct Judas for doing so.

However, Jesus never acknowledges the validity of Judas' assertion about the value of the gift and its alternate uses. If the mission has changed, then Jesus need only say that. But he doesn't. As I noted earlier, "The poor will always be with us" is in the Hebrew Bible. This is not some new observation Jesus is making. It is something he has retrieved from memory for the occasion.

If the verse applies to the current phase of the mission, then it also applied to the poor relief Jesus advocated earlier. And, in fact, it does apply there. The verse in its original context wasn't offered as an excuse to skimp on charity, but rather says that the poor ought always be a concern. In context, then, the verse reinforces Judas' point, rather than refutes it.

It is also not an observation about a changed tactical situation. John's Jesus is habitually one step ahead of the cops and of mobs seeking to stone him. Judas does not need to be told that they play a dangerous game. John 11 has Thomas point out that all the top disciples are in jeopardy, right along with Jesus. Judas has skin in this game, and has had all along.

Mary's services, however indisputably welcome, do not advance any new religious agenda, either. If the oil may be appropriately expended in funerary rites, then it might be saved for that use, within the week. Mary's service is, however, on its face, sumptuary and not funereal. When the funeral comes, John 19: 39-40 tells us there are plenty of herbs and such, with or without this bottle of oil. Jesus isn't planning to be spending much time in the tomb anyway.

The verse, then, is unresponsive, nonsensical and pointless as rebuttal to Judas. Nor does Jesus ever make any reasonable answer to Judas' concerns. On that basis, then, we may inquire into what psychological factors motivated the remark, to infer Jesus' state of mind at this crucial and fatal point in his career.

Posted Image

#38    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 8,931 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:01 AM

View Postdside, on 07 May 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

No, because Satan rebels against God, bringing suffering and curses and ultimately destruction down upon humankind.
Strange the Bible says it's God who does this. Is Satan putting thoughts in God's mind?


#39    Euphorbia

Euphorbia

    Odd Plant Grower

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,258 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere east of San Francisco

  • You can't just choose to believe something.

    Believing in something doesn't make it true.

Posted 08 May 2012 - 03:27 PM

View Postdside, on 08 May 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

No, he is in control. But since original sin, we have become children of the devil and it is his works that are evident throughout the Earth. Some are destined for salvation, some are destined for destruction. The devil creates unbelief and lulls the complacent to sleep.

So you're basically saying there is no free will. We are controlled by either god or the devil? If so, how can we be judged by god if we are not in control? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

I control me......and I think I do a pretty darn good job of it without the intervention of any mythical beings....

Get three coffins ready.

My mistake, four coffins.

Separation of corporation and state!

#40    Mystic Crusader

Mystic Crusader

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arizona

  • "What would you rather be, a bus driver, or a super terrorist?"

Posted 08 May 2012 - 03:52 PM

A simple way to explain "god":  A sadistic power hungry narcissist.

Drunk with blood..
Danger cult leaders
Jewish gematria # 1162:
Who is like God
The epitome of evil

#41    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,863 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:49 PM

View Postrusting, on 07 May 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Arent you contradicting yourself here? First you say God had specific reasons for setting up the universe the way he did..then you do on to say we dont know why He did it...you might say "believing" and "knowing" are two different things..you are right...but just as you "believe" God had specific reasons, the OP does not believe that God had any specific reasons (apart from for what he says later on) ohh and can you provide the logic/reasoning process that leads you to believe that God had any "specific" reasons??
No, I'm not cotradicting myself.  I believe God has specific reasons for creating the universe and life.  I even believe by studying the Bible we can gain an understanding of some--maybe of the ones He wants us to know about/understand, but we are talking about a being with the ability to create the universe simply through the exercise of His will, so He may have reasons which would be impossible for us to grasp.

Quote

You believe parents are taking advantage of their children's weakness by teaching them manners?
Really?  You actually had to parse this quote very carefully to avoid the answer I gave immediately following.  Here is the complete passage:

Quote

Do parents require their children to say, "Please" and "Thank you" to them because they are selfish and self-centered, and get a kick out of taking advantage of their weakness for their own glory? NO! Parents do this to teach their children how to comport themselves in society. God does the same.

Quote

Read similar arguments in a couple of other comments...parents trying to teach their children manners is not the same as God requiring His followers to worship Him. According to Christianity, God requires Christians to attend mass at least once a week..Sunday (not a Christian but assuming this is true)
Actually that may be a "requirement" for some "Christian" religions, but it is not a commandment by God.  There are several passages that encourage Christians to gather with other Christians, but it is not a mandate.

Quote

According to Islam, God requires all of His followers to worship Him five times a week...i dont think parents want their children to worship them once a week or five times a day? So clearly your argument to that specific point is not at all logical.
I'm sorry your capability to extrapolate is so limited.


View Postshadowhive, on 07 May 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

Ah but (the christian) god does something that parents do not. He seriously says that if you don't do what I say, I will murder you. How many parents do you know that would seriously kill their children for not doing what they say?
Ah, but that is not actually what the Christian God does.  People make choices, all decisions have consequences, and people experience those consequences.  God, however, does offer a way out from the eternal consequences of our actions.  If some decide they don't need God, or that whatever their decisions were they will stand by the consequences, or that they are not interested in doing it God's way, or... whatever, then THEY are the ones condemning themselves to eternal death.  All God did was point out what the eventual outcome of their choices were, they still made the decision themselves.  That people refuse to accept  a way out of the consequences of the decisions they freely made and then try to accuse the one who warned them of having condemned them is laughably immature.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#42    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,909 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:25 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 08 May 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Ah, but that is not actually what the Christian God does.  People make choices, all decisions have consequences, and people experience those consequences.  God, however, does offer a way out from the eternal consequences of our actions.  If some decide they don't need God, or that whatever their decisions were they will stand by the consequences, or that they are not interested in doing it God's way, or... whatever, then THEY are the ones condemning themselves to eternal death.  All God did was point out what the eventual outcome of their choices were, they still made the decision themselves.  That people refuse to accept  a way out of the consequences of the decisions they freely made and then try to accuse the one who warned them of having condemned them is laughably immature.

Actually it pretty much sums up what the 'christian god' does. Yes we all make choices, but if anyone so much as puts one foot wrong god's overly willing to let them die/go to hell. It doesn't even have to be a big thing either, pretty much anything is enough to make god willing to let you die/spend an eternity of suffering. The 'consequences' hardly match up with the action.

I make a common comparison here with the justice system. Is the punishment for breaking a law the same, regardless of what that law may be? No, it's not, because we operate a air and just system. The punishment fits the crime. Murder carries a harsher punishment than, say, grafiti. There is a scale, because some things are worse than others. The fact that your god can't grasp such a simple concept (a concept even children can manage) strikes me that he is 'laughably immature'.

As for ignoring warning, well, that's a rather flippant. There are many warnings in life that warn us about real dangers. For example, looking both ways when crossing the street. We know what can happen when you don't: you can get hit by a car, which can lead to serious injury or even death. This is something we have obvious evidence of, with plenty of sources to support it. We can even talk to people that did not heed the warning and suffered for it!

Now let's look at this 'warning'. What says it? The bible. One sole source. The problem with that is it relies on itself as the sole source of 'proof' that it's 'warnings' should be heeded. It's the old problem of the bible beng trusted as being the word of god because it says so. So we have a book, with no verifiable facts and figures that relies solely on itself as proof? Sorry but those 'warnings' don't sound terribly trustworthy.

Fact is, we don't know what happens after death. There's no verifiable evidence one way or another and that's where religion comes in, claiming to have all the answers, threatening non-believers with eternal damnation and claiming to be the only way to eternal paradise. Eternal happiness and eternal damnation are both powerful motivators. They serve as hope and ear, te carrot or the stick. If you can't get someone to do what your religion wants with the promise of happiness then you have the option of threatening them with damnation.

At the end of te day it's less about what god wants, but more about what religion wants. Or, even more to the point, what the men in charge of that particular religion wants.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#43    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,863 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:53 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 08 May 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

Actually it pretty much sums up what the 'christian god' does. Yes we all make choices, but if anyone so much as puts one foot wrong god's overly willing to let them die/go to hell. It doesn't even have to be a big thing either, pretty much anything is enough to make god willing to let you die/spend an eternity of suffering. The 'consequences' hardly match up with the action.
I know it's much easier to shift blame than it is to accept responsibility.  God is so unwilling to let anyone die or go to hell that He took on human form, lived a perfect life and died an unwarranted death so that everyone can be saved and all one has to do is accept that sacrifice to be spared the eternal consequences of their freely made choices.

Quote

I make a common comparison here with the justice system. Is the punishment for breaking a law the same, regardless of what that law may be? No, it's not, because we operate a air and just system. The punishment fits the crime. Murder carries a harsher punishment than, say, grafiti. There is a scale, because some things are worse than others. The fact that your god can't grasp such a simple concept (a concept even children can manage) strikes me that he is 'laughably immature'.
A person can be just as dead from a heart attack, being struck by a bullet, being caught up in a nuclear explosion, or taking one drop of poison.  Eternal death is a consequence as much as it is a punishment.  If I tell you, "Don't play with that hammer because you will hurt yourself, and if you hurt yourself you deserve it for disobeying me.  When you eventually do smash your finger, that will not be a punishment I meted out to you just because I told you it would happen, it is just the consequence of your actions.  It is a punishment, because you disobeyed me and I told you your punishment would be the pain you would experience.  Eternal death is the consequence of being self-centered because in being self-centered one has chosen to disconnect from the only source of eternal life.


Quote

As for ignoring warning, well, that's a rather flippant. There are many warnings in life that warn us about real dangers. For example, looking both ways when crossing the street. We know what can happen when you don't: you can get hit by a car, which can lead to serious injury or even death. This is something we have obvious evidence of, with plenty of sources to support it. We can even talk to people that did not heed the warning and suffered for it!

Now let's look at this 'warning'. What says it? The bible. One sole source. The problem with that is it relies on itself as the sole source of 'proof' that it's 'warnings' should be heeded. It's the old problem of the bible beng trusted as being the word of god because it says so. So we have a book, with no verifiable facts and figures that relies solely on itself as proof? Sorry but those 'warnings' don't sound terribly trustworthy.

Fact is, we don't know what happens after death. There's no verifiable evidence one way or another and that's where religion comes in, claiming to have all the answers, threatening non-believers with eternal damnation and claiming to be the only way to eternal paradise. Eternal happiness and eternal damnation are both powerful motivators. They serve as hope and ear, te carrot or the stick. If you can't get someone to do what your religion wants with the promise of happiness then you have the option of threatening them with damnation.
Hey, if you choose to ignore the warning, and use whatever reasoning you want to justify your choice, then you are the only one responsible for the consequences!  Why is it so difficult to just say, "Hey, you're right, I choose not to accept what the Bible says, and if it turns out that was the wrong decision, then I and only I am responsible for the consequences of that decision."  I have met very few atheists willing to say that.  Most would rather do what you seem to be doing here and blame the believers for believing.

I have deep respect for those atheists who face up to the consequences of their choices without attacking others for the choices they make.

Quote

At the end of te day it's less about what god wants, but more about what religion wants. Or, even more to the point, what the men in charge of that particular religion wants.
At the end of the day it's about whether you have the guts to simply accept responsibility for your decisions.

Edited by IamsSon, 08 May 2012 - 08:56 PM.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#44    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,909 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:13 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 08 May 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

I know it's much easier to shift blame than it is to accept responsibility.  God is so unwilling to let anyone die or go to hell that He took on human form, lived a perfect life and died an unwarranted death so that everyone can be saved and all one has to do is accept that sacrifice to be spared the eternal consequences of their freely made choices.

Yes it is easier to shift the blame. The concept of satan and original sin rather seem like examples of just that.

Sorry, but to me Jesus was a just a man. I agree he died an unwarrented death, but the rest? Well. It just seems so unecessary and showy.

Quote

A person can be just as dead from a heart attack, being struck by a bullet, being caught up in a nuclear explosion, or taking one drop of poison.  Eternal death is a consequence as much as it is a punishment.  If I tell you, "Don't play with that hammer because you will hurt yourself, and if you hurt yourself you deserve it for disobeying me.  When you eventually do smash your finger, that will not be a punishment I meted out to you just because I told you it would happen, it is just the consequence of your actions.  It is a punishment, because you disobeyed me and I told you your punishment would be the pain you would experience.  Eternal death is the consequence of being self-centered because in being self-centered one has chosen to disconnect from the only source of eternal life.

Yep a person is just as dead regardless of the cause, that we can agree on. Eternal death seems more a punishment than a consequence, especially when god seems capable of preventing it.

The two examples are nothing alike because that consequence is provable. I could go get a hammer right now and hurt myself like you describe (I won't, I'm not stupid). Whereas the other 'warning'? Much less fact and evidence based.

It's not being 'self-centered' to require some form of proof of that.

You want to know what IS self centered? That your god looks two people, both did the same actions, gave to charity, loved their neighbors, helped others when they could etc but because one was christian, they get special treatment. Because the other was NOT christian, they get damned forever. It seems incredibly self centered that god cares more for belief in him than what a person does.

Quote

Hey, if you choose to ignore the warning, and use whatever reasoning you want to justify your choice, then you are the only one responsible for the consequences!  Why is it so difficult to just say, "Hey, you're right, I choose not to accept what the Bible says, and if it turns out that was the wrong decision, then I and only I am responsible for the consequences of that decision."  I have met very few atheists willing to say that.  Most would rather do what you seem to be doing here and blame the believers for believing.

And I want the warning to be justified! If you pointed at a patch of ground in front and stated 'don't step on that! It's a bottomless pit that only I can see!' should I follow that warning? What if I sat and watched that patch of ground, watched people and animals walk over it with no ill effects should I still follow the first warning?

I don't follow warnings if they are baseless and lacking in evidence.

I live my live every day. I appreciate my friends and my family. I try and be a good person. The bible says that I should simultaneously 'love thy neighbor' while on the flipside it would want me to judge and persecute the ones around me. Sorry, but that's not a trade of I'd ever make.

If I'm wrong, well, then god can tell me himself.

Quote

At the end of the day it's about whether you have the guts to simply accept responsibility for your decisions.

And that I do. You seem to assume I don't.

I'm just not going to be terrorised into doing things because the bible says so, nor am I so self centered to do good deeds just to get a pass into heaven.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#45    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,863 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:56 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 08 May 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Yes it is easier to shift the blame. The concept of satan and original sin rather seem like examples of just that.
Yes, I agree.  The way in which the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations interpret these two things are very much an attempt to shift blame.  However, what the Scriptures actually teach do not support that perspective.

Quote

Sorry, but to me Jesus was a just a man. I agree he died an unwarrented death, but the rest? Well. It just seems so unecessary and showy.
Its your prerogative.

Quote

Yep a person is just as dead regardless of the cause, that we can agree on. Eternal death seems more a punishment than a consequence, especially when god seems capable of preventing it.
Yes, He is capable of preventing it and has done everything but force your hand on it.  The price has been paid and the gift is being gladly offered, but if He forces you to accept, then it is no longer a gift.

Quote

The two examples are nothing alike because that consequence is provable. I could go get a hammer right now and hurt myself like you describe (I won't, I'm not stupid). Whereas the other 'warning'? Much less fact and evidence based.
One is immediate one is not, obviously one has to be able to make allowances when reading an analogy.


Quote

It's not being 'self-centered' to require some form of proof of that.
It is being self-centered when one decides they will only accept proof A and will not accept any other.


Quote

You want to know what IS self centered? That your god looks two people, both did the same actions, gave to charity, loved their neighbors, helped others when they could etc but because one was christian, they get special treatment. Because the other was NOT christian, they get damned forever. It seems incredibly self centered that god cares more for belief in him than what a person does.
That is not at all what happens.  Like I said, it's about accepting responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.  One person chose to accept the gift that was offered one chose not to.


Quote

And I want the warning to be justified! If you pointed at a patch of ground in front and stated 'don't step on that! It's a bottomless pit that only I can see!' should I follow that warning? What if I sat and watched that patch of ground, watched people and animals walk over it with no ill effects should I still follow the first warning?

I don't follow warnings if they are baseless and lacking in evidence.
The warning is justified, but you have to be honest with yourself.


Quote

I live my live every day. I appreciate my friends and my family. I try and be a good person. The bible says that I should simultaneously 'love thy neighbor' while on the flipside it would want me to judge and persecute the ones around me. Sorry, but that's not a trade of I'd ever make.

If I'm wrong, well, then god can tell me himself.
You really need to stop going off what other people tell you is in the Bible because you're not getting the right information.  Please understand that is not a criticism that is specific to you, there are waaay too many "Christians" who have never really read much less actually studied the Bible and believe and spread misinformation and outright lies taught to them.


Quote

And that I do. You seem to assume I don't.
The fact you keep trying to shift the blame for condemning to God instead of admitting that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions is what informs my assumption.

Quote

I'm just not going to be terrorised into doing things because the bible says so, nor am I so self centered to do good deeds just to get a pass into heaven.
This still does not seem like someone saying, "I choose not to believe and am ready to accept the consequences of my decisions should it turn out I'm wrong."

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users