Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grandk who wrote (12322)	5/13/2002 6:25:43 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Message 17325099 and the Eskimos aren't terrorists either , hehe, ;-)

To: Grandk who wrote (12322)	5/14/2002 12:32:37 AM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

This is a very interesting argument. On the one hand it wants to take scripture at face value ("No man comes to the Father except through me") but on the other hand it waffles when faced with the full implications of such a statement ("It is obvious that this cruel kind of God cannot..."). It seems such internal inconsistency is the hallmark of most Christian apologetics. First off, if it is "obvious" that damning those who never heard of Christ cannot be reconciled with the concept of God's goodness, then how is it that it is not equally "obvious" that an omniscient God who would ever create a soul that He knew would ultimately be eternally damned does not pose exactly the same moral dilemma? From the perspective of one who has been in Hell for, say, a million years does it really matter how or why one arrived there? Is it possible to imagine any crime for which such unremitting torment could credibly be called "justice"? Conversely, if one is willing to admit the possibility of such inhuman jurisprudence then why not simply say that "God moves in mysterious ways" and accept the fact that some are simply damned for no reason that makes any sense to mere mortals? Thus trying to live a good life but never hearing of Christ, dying as an unbaptized infant, eating meat on Friday (prior to Vatican II), etc. could all be equally damnable offenses against God. Who decides which moral percepts are binding on God? The problem, of course, is that while a capricious and feckless God might be feared, He could never be worthy of respect, much less worship. For while deference comes by right of office, respect must always be earned. Fear of Hellfire is a very poor basis for a relationship with God, and yet sadly this and its counterpart in the Bribery of Heaven is what most religion boils down to. While professing belief in a God of unconditional love every aspect of most theology is permeated to the core with a message of conditional love at every turn. Thus does man create God in his own image.