Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Agalayth]

I'm not a completely religous Jew, but I'm still kind of religous. I go to services basically when there are Bar or Bat Mitzvahs. I hate how services are on Saturday mornings. My family usually keeps kosher at home, but not always. I do go to Hebrew School and plan to through High School (I'm only in 7th grade right now).

[HOBBIT]

ah, i quit the second i could - after 7th grade year and after my bar-mitzvah. hated it :P

[Agalayth]

I don't really like it either, but I don't really want to quit because 1) my parents really want me to stay in, and 2) because I don't want to leave a few of my friends who ARE going to be alone.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You still believe in God, right, TDL?

[Rían]

Oh, I finally figured what OTOH means! On the other hand, right?
BTW, you Mooters younger than I am that live with your parents, I heard there's some abbreviation for (roughly) "can't talk about that now, Mom's in the room!" What is it?
*wonders if they will tell her!*

Well, I'll try to wrap up tonite, let's see if I can - I usually end up going on longer than I intended to There's a couple of points from your last post that I'd like to go over.

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
I guess this does lead back to morals again. How dissapointing, I was hoping to avoid them

Yeah, they have an annoying way of refusing to go away, don't they!

... Now here is where I need to figure something out that I haven't quite worked out yet. If it benefits society, how is it still "wrong" to treat one or two people badly?

I think there's no way to explain this one away, no matter how many levels down you try to hide it behind "it's good for society" type things, as it looks like you can see from your comments. It's just wrong, plain wrong, to intentionally hurt someone for your own gain.

Each individual is special in their own way (wow does that sound cheesy) ...

*hums theme from "Barney" *

Perhaps it would be best to work for the kind of fairness and justice that we can never truly achieve but always make progress toward.

I think that's a good idea, and it is right to always strive towards good and right behavior, altho we will certainly fail many times, sadly.

Furthermore, I mentioned before that it is important, IMO, for the pedophiles to learn what they have done wrong and be made to consider that. That is punishment, ne? So on this island they would never learn better. Would it not be better for society for them to be taken to some sort of place where it could be attempted to teach them the kind of horror they inflict and why this is "wrong?" There are places like this, actually.

Yes, I agree that in this scenario, the fact that the pedophiles are allowed to continue unchecked in their error is wrong. I think that's a very important point.

[Rían]

OK, here's the last little bit on justice/abhorrence of evil before my summation - a little bit about relative "tolerance" of evil - (I may have said this before, but I think I didn't, and I don't want to waste time searching)

Some people object to God and characterize Him as being rather nit-picky and unrealistic - "well, I'm really a v. good person, and I try really hard, and it's not like I'm a mass-murderer or anything. I should get into heaven! After all, everyone has a bad day sometimes!" But if you think it through, I think that it will make sense that a perfectly holy God is RIGHT to consider ALL offenses as morally offensive, and God would be less than God if He didn't think that way. I'll try to explain in the rest of the post.


I'm glad to see, EG, that you see that "evil" acts are harmful and "wrong" - both to society (which is made up of individuals), and to individuals. I think it's a pretty safe guess that everyone on Entmoot would agree that the terrible acts mentioned in the pedophile scenario are harmful and wrong.

However, I would also guess that not everyone agrees on some of the "minor" offenses mentioned in the Bible, such as lying or gossip or coveting (wanting things that someone else has in a bad way, like making you dissatisfied with what you have and being obsessed with the thing you don't have and angry with the person that does have it, etc.) And I think that the people that you would consider more "good" are the ones that would object to some of these "lesser" offenses.

And outside of the Moot, there are certainly people that you would consider more "bad" than you are that would not have problems with things that you would definitely consider wrong, wouldn't you agree? (after all, there are organizations like NAMBLA that have information and tips on how to find young kids for abusing, altho I doubt if they would use that word.)

So I think that:

• (1) You are RIGHT to abhor/be morally offended at behavior you see to be evil;
  (2) People that you consider to be "worse" than you are NOT morally offended by as many things as you are.
  (3) People that you consider to be "better" than you are ARE morally offended (and rightly) by more things than you are.

And if you take this to its logical conclusion, you can see that God, who is perfectly good, is then perfectly RIGHT to be morally offended by ANY wrong behavior. It would be WRONG if God was NOT morally offended by all wrong behavior, just as you can see that it's WRONG for a pedophile to not only DO an evil act, but to consider an evil act "ok" to do!

[Rían]

And here it is, my summary post on the subject of hell! (finally!)


1. There exists TRUTH - IOW, 2 (or more) contradictory statements cannot both (or all) be TRUE. So different religious beliefs that contain contradictory statements about god/gods cannot all be true. There must be a TRUE statement of what actually exists in reality. Whether or not you believe you can discover what this truth is, is another question - but there IS a TRUE state of things.

2. It is TRUE, IMO, that the God of the Bible exists (based upon various reasons, which don't really matter in this discussion, since I'm explaining Christian doctrine, not explaining why I, personally, believe it to be true), and the Bible contains truths of and about God (not all of them, obviously - not enough room! - but those that are applicable to us).

3. God is perfectly holy, among other things, and all sin is rightly an abhorrence to Him (just as we, made in His image, rightly abhor heinous crimes. Where we differ is with the "smaller" stuff, but we are not perfectly holy, either, so it's understandable. The more "good" a person is, the more they realize that the "smaller" stuff is wrong, too).

4. God created us with free will, and knew in advance that that meant the POSSIBILITY of sin. And because He is perfectly holy, there is rightly a penalty for sin. But because He is perfectly fair and just, he planned ahead of time how we could be saved from paying the penalty of our sin through what Jesus did on the cross - substitutionary atonement. The best picture for this is a civil court, where there is a financial amount that must be paid for a "sin" - we are unable to pay our "debt" for our sin; Jesus, however, IS able, and DID. However, we can tell the judge that we don't want Him to pay for us (because this entails acknowledging the truth, among other things, that Jesus is rightfully Lord), or we can tell the judge (and Him) that we accept with gratitude His payment for us.

5. God declares in the Bible that it is His desire that EVERYONE be "saved" (this means made righteous before God through Jesus' paying the penalty for our sins). God has provided the "free gift" of salvation for those that choose to take it. God is just, and He declares in the Bible that there is sufficient evidence for everyone to choose to be saved. There are examples of people BEFORE THE TIME OF JESUS that are declared saved by God because of their faith, so a person doesn't even have to have heard the Bible to be saved. All that IS definitely said is that (a) the ONLY way of salvation is through Jesus, and (b) salvation is by FAITH.

6. Therefore, it is a person's free-will choice to "go to hell". God will NOT drag them kicking and screaming into heaven, which is a REAL place where God rightly and properly is revealed to reign and to be sovereign Lord of all, and a place that people that deny the gift of salvation would NOT want to be in. God will not make a “false reality� for people that is false to the true nature of the universe and where sin is not acknowledged to be wrong. The only other place to be in is hell.

And that's my summary. It's a very serious topic, and that's why I've gone to a lot of time and work to explain what I believe to be the Christian doctrine on the issue, because I think what you originally posted on hell reflected some erroneous ideas about Christian doctrine. I'll provide the Bible references if you would like me to.

Thoughts? Comments? Thanks for hanging in there with me thru some VERY long posts and a lot more time than I would have wished - I really appreciate it, and it's well worth it to me because it looks like you're really thinking through what I've said. We may end up disagreeing, but we've had some honest discussion on the subject, and that makes it worth it.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Well, I'll try to wrap up tonite, let's see if I can - I usually end up going on longer than I intended to There's a couple of points from your last post that I'd like to go over.

Uh-oh...I smell a long post coming! A few of them, actually.

Yeah, they have an annoying way of refusing to go away, don't they!

Yes, curse them! Rather unavoidable. Well, I'll find my way around them somehow!

I think there's no way to explain this one away, no matter how many levels down you try to hide it behind "it's good for society" type things, as it looks like you can see from your comments. It's just wrong, plain wrong, to intentionally hurt someone for your own gain.

But what about hurting someone for the gain of everybody? (I didn't just ask that. We're going in circles.)
Anyway, I think you still can use that, but with the addition, "good for society as a whole and the individuals that make up said society." So everyone has to have the same opportunities. Because that is Justice, and Justice is important. (But then there's the question of what defines Justice...) Not morals, though they may perhaps be connected. But I don't think "just plain wrong" is a reason. Why is it wrong? What makes it wrong? What is wrong, and who gets to define wrong? I'm guessing (though NOT putting words in your mouth) that you'll say something along the lines of "God defines right and wrong" or "it's in the Bible." (But less simplified. Of course. ) However, that doesn't work for a lot of people. I think we need a better explanation, especially in my belief system, because I'm not saying anyone's wrong about their religion. Sure, I certainly say which ones I like better, but that's just me. Right. I'm not getting anywhere. But I'm going to think about it, and see if I can come up with something besides "just plain wrong." Um.

I think that's a good idea, and it is right to always strive towards good and right behavior, altho we will certainly fail many times, sadly.

To strive toward Justice, that which we shall never truly acheive but can always work towards. Progress is still possible. (This makes me miss my boyfriend. Want to talk to him about this. )

[Rían]

ps - EG's original question was "how can God be considered loving, etc, when to not accept God is to go to Hell?"

So my answer is that people going to hell is NOT a comment on God's lovingkindness! It's a reflection of a FREE-WILL choice on that person's part, and the fact that a true state of things exists.

Now it DOES show God's lovingkindness in that He provided a way to SAVE people from hell, at a great cost to Himself. But he does not take away a person's free will and force them to go to heaven or hell - the choice is with each individual person.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'm glad to see, EG, that you see that "evil" acts are harmful and "wrong" - both to society (which is made up of individuals), and to individuals. I think it's a pretty safe guess that everyone on Entmoot would agree that the terrible acts mentioned in the pedophile scenario are harmful and wrong.

Well, it's harmful to society and I wouldn't want it happening to me, therefore I wouldn't do it to others. That's as far as I'll go with that, though. The first part is working under the assumption that society is something we want continued. Well, being the selfish creatures we are (what species isn't?) it makes perfect sense. But that's as far as I'd go with it. I still believe that morals are quite relative. So, I'm glad you're glad, and it seems we have again reached a point at which we've both stated are views and can once again "agree to disagree." Do you agree with that conclusion?

However, I would also guess that not everyone agrees on some of the "minor" offenses mentioned in the Bible, such as lying or gossip or coveting (wanting things that someone else has in a bad way, like making you dissatisfied with what you have and being obsessed with the thing you don't have and angry with the person that does have it, etc.) And I think that the people that you would consider more "good" are the ones that would object to some of these "lesser" offenses.

And outside of the Moot, there are certainly people that you would consider more "bad" than you are that would not have problems with things that you would definitely consider wrong, wouldn't you agree? (after all, there are organizations like NAMBLA that have information and tips on how to find young kids for abusing, altho I doubt if they would use that word.)

Yes, but as I said, morals are relative. Things that would absolutely disgust me may be considered not only normal, but good, in other cultures. Who am I to disapprove of them? Well anyway, there's my opinion (again).

So I think that:

• (1) You are RIGHT to abhor/be morally offended at behavior you see to be evil;
  (2) People that you consider to be "worse" than you are NOT morally offended by as many things as you are.
  (3) People that you consider to be "better" than you are ARE morally offended (and rightly) by more things than you are.

And again, I'll just state my views for the sake of stating them:
(1) If one is morally offended by certain behaviors/actions of someone within their own society, which society generally finds to be abhorrent, then I think they have every right to think that. The relativaty of morals is more along the lines of being generally accepted in a society than individual morals, so that society works. So, to be morally offended by someone who, say, murdered their child, is perfectly reasonable.
(2) Yes, some individuals in our society could be considered worse people than I consider myself to be. And these people might not find their actions to be wrong.
(3) Yes, that makes perfect sense. Then again so does everything else you've said, but I couldn't resist throwing in my views

And if you take this to its logical conclusion, you can see that God, who is perfectly good, is then perfectly RIGHT to be morally offended by ANY wrong behavior. It would be WRONG if God was NOT morally offended by all wrong behavior, just as you can see that it's WRONG for a pedophile to not only DO an evil act, but to consider an evil act "ok" to do!

Following that logic, yes, mostly. However...gah, now I'm going really crazy...possibilities of God being...okay, stopping now. That's for a different discussion. I've read His Dark Materials too many times. In that God (the Authority) is really just the strongest of angels, and he tricks everyone. So, I'm stopping now.
Thanks for sharing your views!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I've still a lot more to write in response! So many thoughts, so little time. However, I'll just reply to this and then go to sleep and continue tomorrow, 'cause I'm getting sleepy

Originally posted by RÃ*an
ps - EG's original question was "how can God be considered loving, etc, when to not accept God is to go to Hell?"

So my answer is that people going to hell is NOT a comment on God's lovingkindness! It's a reflection of a FREE-WILL choice on that person's part, and the fact that a true state of things exists.

Now it DOES show God's lovingkindness in that He provided a way to SAVE people from hell, at a great cost to Himself. But he does not take away a person's free will and force them to go to heaven or hell - the choice is with each individual person.

Well, I suppose that is a reasonable answer. I can understand that, I guess. I know you've patiently explained all this, but I'm afraid I still feel a little bit like it's God being rather jealous or something. God is still saying, the way I read it, "Accept me and join me in Heaven, or be doomed to eternal suffering," and that seems terribly...jealous. I understand the free will part, that makes sense, but why do we have to have that choice anyway? Why must we accept God? And perhaps you've answered this already and this is merely a reflection of the late hour, but what is the great cost to God in allowing people free choice? I mean, yes, people can sin, but...wasn't that because God had that tree in the Garden of Eden? Couldn't you have made an "informed choice" about accepting god or not without the knowledge the forbidden fruit gave? And why did God stick the tree there right where any reasonably curious person would go ahead and take it, despite explicit orders not to? (Okay, there was also the thing with the serpent...but that's mere detail )
I think I'm pretty much satisfied with your answer, though. I can see that you don't have a problem it--you don't it the same way I do, and I can understand that.

There was a second question, if ANYONE wants to try to answer it, Why is Christianity better, and more right, than any other religion? I found something someone said on this, a great quote, that I'll post as soon as I can find it. But I'd love an answer to that!

[Wayfarer]

God is still saying, the way I read it, "Accept me and join me in Heaven, or be doomed to eternal suffering," and that seems terribly...jealous.

Ah, but if I may quickly interject, you miss a crucial detail. You see, you cannot treat heaven and hell as seperate things that are 'tacked on' to whether you accept or reject God, nor is the idea of hell an 'or else' proposition. It is hard to explain, but what God is saying to you is this:

"Come to me, and join me for eternity- this is heaven. Reject me, and be seperated from me for eternity- this is hell. All that is Good comes from me, and in my love I will give to you freely, but there is no good thing apart from me, and apart from me is everlasting suffering. Now choose."

*typed during a church service. ]:-)

[Ruinel]

RÃ*an, just checking again to see if you ever got to my question. I didn't see it though. Do you need me to post it again? Or will you be able to find it in all this hot air.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
There was a second question, if ANYONE wants to try to answer it, Why is Christianity better, and more right, than any other religion? I found something someone said on this, a great quote, that I'll post as soon as I can find it. But I'd love an answer to that!

That's the question I'd like to discuss next, which was basically Hobbit's question, too, IIRC (I'll go back and actually quote Hobbit's posts when we officially start), and I hope Wayfarer can join us on that one.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
RÃ*an, just checking again to see if you ever got to my question. I didn't see it though. Do you need me to post it again? Or will you be able to find it in all this hot air.

I just finished up my final post on the subject of hell late last night, and I think there might be a few more posts wrapping it up, then we're going to move on to Hobbit's question, which I think was before yours. Or actually, I think yours was kinda along the same lines - or was yours more on the "Numbers 31" thing? I'm sorry, I don't remember - it was quite a few pages ago . Would you repeat it for me, and maybe we can work it into the next discussion, unless it was the Numbers 31 thing that GrayMouser brought up, which is a whole seperate topic.

[Ruinel]

My question was in regards to the pain and suffering that is allowed to exist on Earth by the Christian god. Especially, the pain and suffering that happens to innocent children.

[TheEvilForceOfSuchandSuch]

This is a very large thread. Not good for someone trying to break the habit of not reading the entire thing . Anyhoo, I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any kind of supernatural spirit and I think once you die, you're gone and you cease to exist. I'm interested in pagan religions as a subject but I can't bring myself to swallow any of it, much less Christianity. Though I have given it more than a shot, for eight years I had to go to a private Catholic school, courtesy of my mother. Now I go to public, woohoo!

[Wayfarer]

My question was in regards to the pain and suffering that is allowed to exist on Earth by the Christian god. Especially, the pain and suffering that happens to innocent children.

Indeed, the Problem of Pain. *shrewd glance*

[Rían]

Sorry, Ru, I had forgotten what your question was for sure - 10 pages of discussions on hell made me forget! I thought it was either reasons behind believing, or the pain issue, but didn't remember for sure.

Wayfarer, if you can stick around, I'd be willing to discuss both topics at once - what do you think? I'd like to start Hobbit's first, because he's waited the longest, but I think that given the nature of this thread (there's time gaps between responses) perhaps we can handle 2??

Hobbit, would you like to discuss only yours at this point, or shall we add in the pain question, too? I'd like to hear your opinion, since you've waited so long (I can't help that I'm slow, but at least I'm thorough! )

I'll definitely get to your question, Ru, either way (also it was GreyM's question).

[Ruinel]

Here is my original question, RÃ*an. I've also included my opinion prior to it, in case you needed that as well.

Originally posted by Ruinel
The bible is full of holes, half-truths and non-truths because the people who wrote it were primitive. They were trying to make sense of a complicated world. In the beginning, when humans began to wonder about their existance and the world around them, they make up a system of tales that explain why the sun crosses the sky each day, where they come from and why they should do this ceremony or sacrifice, or make this rule/law. At first, this information is passed down orally. From generation to generation. Then comes the written language and eventually, humans put their beliefs in a book... the bible. Man created god to understand the world and human existance. For most people, this helps them to feel safe, that there is a great father-like figure out there somewhere that loves them and punishes them when they are bad.

Religions, all religions, have worked under peer pressure and the threat to individual liberties. If you belong to a small community/society of people and they all think that everyone should sacrifice the first born calf in the month of April to the great god X or the great god X will make the mountain shake and the lava flow from it, then they will all do it. Many Jews were converted during the Inquisition period in Europe. Many native people in the US were also converted when the Americas were first explored and missionaries were brought over with the explorers and their troops.

I could end this thread very easily by asking one question which everyone has posed to themselves, if not out loud, at one time or another. If there is a supreme all-powerful being with limitless abilities, such as creating a universe and life, then why do pedophiles still torture, rape and kill innocent children? But I will not ask this question. Because it would end this thread.

Originally posted by long lost Wayfarer
Indeed, the Problem of Pain. *shrewd glance*

*sigh* oh, brother