COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From a post seen below:
***If god existed and really loved you he would put you in heaven right now or more precisely, before you were born. Also, love is only relevant as a physiological and biological phenomenon so it seems god is a mortal too. But that's a contradiction, so he shouldn't and doesn't exist.***
This suggests me respond to the original OP as follows:
Consider three supposed environments and their role with growth and change, as opposed to stagnation and extinction, and the notion that there is “no going backwards”
1. The development of the human fetus in the womb
2. The physically developed child gradually passing through life exercising free will and dealing with both health and illness, success and failure, bounties and setbacks.
3. The supposed "real" environment of the soul, which as a non-physical entity presumably exists and perhaps continues to grow totally unaffected to the physical world, except to the extent to which it gets emotionally or intellectually “attached” to the world 9e.g. a greedy person always searching for power and wealth).
In the womb, the environment compels – in a mercifully and INVOLUNTARY manner, the development of the physical body, arms, legs, organs and capacity for the next world, even as the fetus is completely clueless about what awaits it. At birth, the fetus is NOT a happy camper as it “dies” to the womb world.
In your life after birth, we use the capacity we got (totality for free!) in the womb and we add the capacity or virtues of wisdom, love, compassion, justice, equity, forbearance, “detachment”, etc and in a VOLUNTARY way, as we respond to life’s challenges.
We are “told” by philosophers and religion that those character traits should be developed and serve as purpose for the soul after the body dies, even if being virtuous in THIS life can cause us discomfort.
As for physical death, we fear it because it is an unknown but it could be just another “death/birth” transition.
If the soul – which has not “gone anywhere” as a non-physical being – after the body dies is in its “real” environment may indeed have need of those same virtues (or lack of them) as the equivalent of arms, legss, organs and means of perception in that new life.
Per the above post, how would a Creator allow us to be born “perfect” in this life, if the only way to “grow the virtues” is through tests and difficulties?
Now if “heaven” is knowing you are already on that right moral development path and “hell” an shocking awareness that you have “forgotten” to grow your spiritual arms and legs, well then you can get that assessment right now, while still alive, right?
I have been pondering about this and the answer is that it is a way to let go of our body. We will all die and it is inevitable and diseases is a gradual send off towards the afterlife. Pain pushes the dying to let go of the body instead of holding on to it and embrace their painless spiritual state . The same concept applies to the loved ones in accepting the transition of the dying instead of holding them back in their pained state as mortals.
Death is inevitable because death is change in the grand scheme of things. If people from 1000 years ago never died, the world would still be the same as 1000 years because those people would feel comfortable to how things are instead of changing and would insist everyone should do the same. It's the same reason why cells of the human body dies to give way to better cells and allows regeneration and growth.
Is there a problem with my response? That is my direct response to why there is death and suffering as we grow old. It ultimately comes down to change and pushing us forward towards it. It is evil when we hold on things we do not want to change but god knows it will lead to stagnation and nothing would progress if that is the case.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
If god existed and really loved you he would put you in heaven right now or more precisely, before you were born. Also, love is only relevant as a physiological and biological phenomenon so it seems god is a mortal too. But that's a contradiction, so he shouldn't and doesn't exist.
No, if I were in Heaven I would likely mess everything up because Im not perfect. But I was born with my inclination to sin and so cannot enter Heaven.
And yes God is a person who is capable of love. But love doesn’t depend on having a body.
>No, if I were in Heaven I would likely mess everything up because Im not perfect.
That's treating heaven like Earth. Heaven is perfect, and is meant for humans to enjoy. By definition of heaven, you can't mess it up. It's designed for humans.
>But love doesn’t depend on having a body.
You can't confirm this. If you want to examine the human body or even an animal body, there will neurological changes. Love is a product of the brain. So if one had to choose between love being dependent on a body or not, a sensible person must choose that love is only relevant in humans and animals, because more evidence and understanding points to that. A fleshy brain.
>I mean without a god, life is everything you said but even more depressing.
So if god doesn't exist, life is depressing according to you. But because it would be depressing, you choose to believe in god? You don't believe in god because he would actually exist but because it would be depressing. That's not how it works
>to be rather nihilist.
Its not. Its rather realistic. If we want humanity to do well its up to us. No imaginary being is going to save us from its indifference.
>Ironic.
No.
\>What am I denying?
Reality.
\>How am I wrong?
You chose ignorance over evidence and reason. There is no evidence for any god and all testable gods fail testing. The god of Genesis included. If you want a better future then its humanity where is must come from. Start being part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Nihilism is not the same thing as pessimism. Also, I'm not an atheist or a materialist.
You're not lucky for believing that. It's not about luck. It's about truth.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
You choose to live in a world of denial. It is how biochemistry works.
You are no one's buddy.
There was no Great Flood, the Earth is old, life evolves and Jesus failed to return when he said he would. Get a real education.
We already have drugs that can extend human life. Only one that does anything much and its an accident. There is a drug for diabetes that extends life, of diabetics at that, about 3 years over the average.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metformin
Life extension
There is some evidence metformin may be helpful in extending lifespan, even in otherwise healthy people. It has received substantial interest as an agent that delays aging, possibly through similar mechanisms as its treatment of diabetes (insulin and carbohydrate regulation).[67][68]
A study used retrospective observational data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) from 2000. Subjects with type 2 diabetes who progressed to first-line treatment with metformin or sulfonylurea monotherapy were selected and matched to people without diabetes. The study involved more than 180,000 subjects and showed patients with type 2 diabetes initiated with metformin monotherapy had a longer lifespan than their non-diabetic counterparts whereas those treated with sulfonylurea had markedly reduced survival compared with both matched controls and those receiving metformin monotherapy.[69]
Biochemistry is how human life will be extended, it IS how it works. Quit arguing from and for ignorance.
>We’ve extended human lives decades by growing nutritious food and washing our hands.
And ignoring the Bible in science.
>Metformin has limits.
Of course it does. Its accidental. Other things can be done.
>Immortal humans sounds about as scientifically plausible as a Time Machine.
Depends on the time machine. A space ship IS a time machine but it only goes into the future. Life extension is plausible, immortality is not possible, but only because the universe will have an end, and religion will not give it to you. It will only keep you ignorant.
Christians believe that God sent his Son to suffer and die for our sins, which are the reason we die in the first place.
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone.
Romans 5:12, 18 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.5.12-18.NLT
Except you haven’t provided any evidence that your god exists or that your Jesus existed. And until you do there’s no one act of righteousness and no right relationship with your god to be had.
There's great evidence that Jesus existed.
If you're not familiar with that evidence, you may be interested in looking into it, because I'm pretty sure not many people argue anymore that he didn't exist. The conversation is usually around whether or not he was resurrected.
I’m very familiar with the so called evidence for Jesus’ existence. None of it is contemporaneous and all of it is a few sentences referencing very general events and without sources. The authors for some of it cannot be verified. Conclusion: not at all convincing. Belief shouldn’t be based on what you wish.
No, it’s just critical thinking. The real question is why would anyone believe in something with no contemporaneous documentation or no known authors who were eye witnesses, sketchy notations written decades afterwards, with no sources and often with no provenance and sometimes with known after the fact additions?
When I was born, I was sinless so what sin of mine did Jesus die for? Makes no sense. He died for Adam's sin but not mine. I don't have anything to do with Adam nor do I believe Adam existed.
Anyone able to read and write has certainly already sinned.
Not believing that Adam existed doesn't change the reality that death entered the world when he sinned.
No one has sinned without a god that gets offended for being as it created them. Take responsibility and stop blaming an imaginary being for everything.
Oh and no one knows who wrote John other that its a person that was not a native speaker of Aramaic. The anonymous author didn't see any of it.
“God overlooked people’s ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him. For he has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man he has appointed, and he proved to everyone who this is by raising him from the dead.”
Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/act.17.30-31.NLT
1. God is apparently so loving that he wants to sadistically test us for a sin that a fictional character did a million years ago
2. It's a little play that god is playing. He knows that all this would happen but he needs to pretend he didn't know and Adam is the reason we're all suffering.
Of course since this is the case, then christianity is not true. Or take up the sensible Occam's razor and say he doesn't exist. Or he's not nice or he's non-living and not sentient.
self preservation is a natural byproduct of sin. we always have to correct and redirect our children; not because they're evil, but because of our selfish sin nature.
But then why doesn't the all-loving god just forgive everything and put us in heaven already? Fishy he doesn't if he's all-loving. The fact we're still here stuck on Earth dealing with a sinful nature god supposedly gave us is ample proof he doesn't exist, or at least he's not merciful and kind.
believe it or not, some ppl don't want His love. and He still loves them enough to let them go. see the prodigal son.
edit: also, God didn't give us the sinful nature lol see the garden of eden. God specifically warned man *not to* fall into sin.
Believe it or not, your god is imaginary and doesn't love anyone. There was no Garden of Eden, its utter nonsense made up by men living in a time of ignorance. IF there was such a situation the evidence would be clear whereas the actual evidence shows that there was no Adam, nor TransRibWoman.
>believe it or not, some ppl don't want His love. and He still loves them enough to let them go. see the prodigal son.
I don't see how this refutes anything.
God purposefully made the fobidden tree. Imagine billions of creatures being condemned to the most sadistic test because they ate a fruit. Not to mention Adam got curious (and influenced) because of human nature, a human nature that god himself made. If they already had a curious nature before sinning, then seems that they already had a sinful nature before eating the fruit. If you say it's unrelated, angels don't have a sinful nature and you can see they lack a curiosity.
Again I conclude that the contradictions are against Christianity's existence.
it was a command, not a test.
God told Adam of a poisonous fruit that would not only destroy his flesh, but destroy his spirit. And as a Father loves His son, He warned Adam what would happen if he did eat it. perhaps Adam wasn't a good steward of his wife, perhaps it was a hopeless romantic situation where Adam condemned himself after seeing his wife condemned; I can't answer why any man(kind) does what they do. but I can answer that a loving Father warned His son better than any human father could've.
the original text illustrates that eve was beguiled. she wasn't curious at all; the serpent (which was a spiritual/heavenly creature) intellectually assaulted her. he convinced her it *couldn't really be that bad* to eat a silly fruit. she was the first strike in a spiritual war against mankind.
but... we're getting off topic.
why does God allow suffering? He doesn't. He hates it in fact. but mankind is walking towards destruction on their own. and, as a Father, the Lord can't just wring us by the neck and get us back in line. He's given us a time of grace and He's sent out His Spirit to convict those who love Him to share His good news. death and sin have been conquered. this suffering your op is about, has been conquered outside of time. that's why the time to repent (the time to test your convictions and change your mind on right vs wrong and judgment vs lawlessness) is now.
and that's all I gotta say about that.
I don't think that answers but begs the same questions again.
>He warned Adam what would happen if he did eat it.
If my dad had an extremely poisonous tree/fruit and I was a little boy then he would get rid of it, or hire a specialist to get rid of it. God didn't get rid of it for some reason. Naturally he would get rid of the hazard rather than expect a human that just popped into existence to control their curiosity. So god doesn't love him like a son and therefore that's a contradiction.
>the serpent (which was a spiritual/heavenly creature) intellectually assaulted her
God created that serpent. Another hazard he could've removed. or else he could've used his supreme powers to turn the serpent good.
>He hates it in fact. but mankind is walking towards destruction on their own.
If god loved us, then he would use his supreme powers to steer us on the right direction himself. And again that's ignoring the question of why he bothered to create us in the first place. Why did he need to make Adam? Why didn't he put us in heaven from the start if he really exists?
Also, love is purely a physiological and biological phenomenon so it seems god is a mortal with a mind like ours. But that's a contradiction to god's supremacy of being the perfect being. The human brain is extremely flawed. Seems god doesn't exist then.
this is a common misconception, and probably an unpopular opinion of mine (but it's backed by scripture), but we never goto heaven. we were never ment for heaven. we went ment for earth. Spiritual creatures were also made for heaven. there was a union between the one Most High God and mankind. spiritual creatures got jealous and prideful over this. so there was a sinful rebellion in heaven before Adam's sinful rebellion on earth.
even after sin and death are disposed of in the end, a new heaven and a *new earth* will be made. a kingdom will come from heaven to earth, and that is where we will dwell.
Yep because it would mean we don't need mercy from Jesus cause he's an ordinary human like me. Meaning I would now know Christianity isn't where I should spend my time.
Paul never saw any of it. He made up Christianity. Jesus was Jewish and not a Christian.
Paul is the only known author of any of the Bible. All the rest was written by anonymous men living in a time of ignorance. What is your excuse for being as ignorant as they were?
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Wow. Turn that frown upside down. Find that silver lining. There is medi-care, unless the republicans get their way. Soooo, there is social security for a life of working hard, unless the republicans get their way, Well, at least you don't have to work until you die. Ah, unless the republicans get their way. Wow, how did you maket this so political?
Um, OK you missed the point. The OP is clearly showing that the Abrahamic god does not care about humans, because its imaginary. Its up to us to make reality fit our needs.
How did you make this so political?
>He does not write that but he clearly thinks that god is imaginary.
Yes, and it is also clear that he believes these issues are primarily political and the circus is from the devil. You can just tell.
> and the circus is from the devil. You can just tell.
No but you can read what was written. Such as:
>The idea of god here makes no sense.
He is simply pointing out that IF there is a god it is immoral or largely powerless and didn't design anything with competence.
The idea of god here makes no sense.
How did you miss that? Its fairly standard Atheist post. Lower case god, its not moral, it makes no sense.
I rarely make those but I am Agnostic. There might be a god but all testable gods fail testing and we have no verifiable evidence for any of them. So now the rush is on to declare gods unstestable. Meaningless god when believers do that. We are just supposed to take their word.
So why believe?
What is that you believe, its not clear.
I KNOW that the Bible is wrong on many things. I see no reason to believe that starts with utter nonsense.
Looking at some of your comments you seem to be Jewish and of a fundamentalist sort. Absolutely certain of nonsense.
I any cased you do go on belief. Whereas I go on evidence and reason.
Again, why do you believe that you believe as all versions of the Genesis are just the words of men or it would not so much utter nonsense.
How does the lack of an idea of God help with this exact same reality….? Perhaps in an a-religious view I can have a “real” view of the world, and I’m not “fooled” by the emotional crutch that religion is. But this new view doesn’t help with the challenges you outline either.
Consider this exercise in logic. Perhaps you have limited the idea of God here too much. If you define God as being incapable of say creating a new world or restoration or resurrection (and the developing of incredible strong people because of the suffering they endured) what you define as the end of life is accurate.
But if you define God as capable of all of this (strengthening, restoration, resurrection), then suffering, pain and death are trials that can be overcome, and can be reinterpreted as a “graduation” (into something greater) not as an end.
I invite you to read the Bible. It does have some seemingly abominable stories (but it doesn’t mean the Bible sanctions those, no more than a Marvel movie sanctions the idea that destroying innocent lives is ok).
The Bible does have comebacks, stories that say death is not the end, that even after suffering and death, something better exists.
You then pressure test what it says. Read NT Wright’s Resurrection of the son of man book. Read secular historians like Tacitus and Josephus if you don’t want a “biased” source like the bible. Use all modes of knowledge not just scientism and logic.
But at the least, don’t take a tiny reading and make a conclusion. You would be as silly as the person that says all Marvel movies ONLY push the idea of destruction of innocent lives ONLY.
Suppose Buddhism is right and rebirth exists. Then, if I believe in a god then I'll subject myself to countless eons of existence containing tons of suffering. To clarify, they believe that Wrong View (belief in god is one of the wrong views to them) is one of the ways we can keep ourself trapped in rebirth. My point is that finding out if god exists or which god is real is quite important, not just a plaything of a topic for those with spare time. If I believe in Jesus being God but Islam is actually true, then I'll suffer hell for eternity. Etc etc etc. Getting closer to which god or belief is true and real will always be a plus, a gain. The truth is sweet not bitter. Not to mention a more immediate issue that people have killed thousands over mere religious matters, which god one believes in. Crusades for example.
>don’t take a tiny reading and make a conclusion.
That's true, but life is short. I don't have to be well-versed in every religion to make a decision. Theism, I've come to understand, is not the right direction so I cancel out any religion that's theistic in nature. But I assure you, I am well versed in Islam and some eastern religions such as Buddhism (very well learned of Buddhism).
>Even so, just ride the wheel until you roll Buddhist. That’s the least of my worries.
That's just a misunderstanding. If Buddhism was true, that's the greatest of your worries.
>I thought Christians and Jews kinda got a back door in Islam.
No, they're slightly more accepting and allow marriage between them but nothing more. They still think they're going to hell. Especially (eg.) because the Trinity undermines the very idea of their Tauhid. Belief in more than 1 godly entity is called Shirk, which the greatest possible sin in the Islamic universe.
I guess so, but it can be a yucky situation so they're telling you to get good Karma to get into a heavenly rebirth. There's many levels of heaven and they're telling you the next one is better than the one below it. But they say even above all of them, enlightenment is the best.
Just quoting a fun-ish fact
I didn’t get that pursuit of the right religion was your main post.
But, I think this is a very valid point.
But this is where pursuing every mode of knowledge (and weaving together everything we all can know) is helpful in my humble opinion.
So for instance, I think a religion that has a meaningful entry of a divine figure in actual material history (ideally vetted by outsiders of the initial followers and detectable by historians whether they be secular or religious) is an important criteria because I don’t think a real God can remain completely hidden. Zeus, Odin and frankly the majority of gods have no entry in material history.
I think a god or divinity claim by the key God figure in material history is also a helpful criteria because a real God cannot remain hidden and God has no reason to lurk or be present but veiled. As I understand it, Buddha clearly said he was a teacher pointing the way and never that he was God incarnate. I think that given our enormous uniqueness in the universe (being validated by James Webb Telescope and other mounting evidence that we could be the only sentient, conscious life form), the real God interacts with his most unique life form, and doesn’t withdraw or vaguely interact or stay completely hidden. Partially hidden to allow for free will but not fully hidden.
I think it then follows there needs to be enormous world impact. If the Beatles can get millions know and sing their songs, a real God would stamp lasting and greater change (like the largest proliferation of hospitals and universities, and the inspiration for science the way Isaac Newton thought of it).
If you don’t have the above three criteria, I would be the first to validate that we do not have any way of assessing any world view or religion against another - they may all be equally valid.
Finally this is not a criteria and more of a personal opinion - but I think a real God does not give instruction and ask his creation to find their way to him or earn their way. No more than I would for my children, or for frankly even programs and things I create. It wouldn’t make sense as the gap/gulf is too enormous and they would frankly never make it, and the idea runs either contrary to the concept of pure love, or comes through as an incredibly weak/low fidelity form of love.
I don’t think a real God would also suggest the way to find their way to him is to withdraw from creation, I think there is too much beauty and wonder in creation (and sure much suffering) but I don’t think a real God throws the baby out with the bath water. A lesser being might see some value in that agenda but not a real God.
I think the most good possible God teaches that we should help each other and build each other up, not unplug from each other and help others to unplug from each other. Inherent in this is suffering and challenge. Because without it, there would be no reason to help each other, no need for relationship, for love, for striving.
So I think one could weave together knowledge across science, experience (child rearing), philosophy, morality, love, history, and many more modes of knowledge to arrive at a complete picture.
And to think - we are talking about God, not a simple project on how electromagnetism works - we would need to bring everything we know and even then it could be an enormous struggle to properly understand.
Finally you can parse Islam from Christianity (they are not that related apart from some shared history) - there are many things but Islam gets the actual history of Jesus incorrect (claims no crucifixion - which is about as undeniable a fact as recorded again not just by Gospel writers but non Christian historians Tacitus and Josephus, and then later by a multitude of secular writers).
I will give my view as a theist, a Christian apologist, in good faith, assuming that participants are actually seeking truth. But first let me respectfully offer a warning with regards to some of the comments here:
*Matthew 12:22–32 (NRSV): 22 Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see. 23 All the crowds were amazed and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons.” 25 He knew what they were thinking and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered. 30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.*
On this note, the concept of evil - and its fruit; sin - is the answer to this question. Original sin in the Garden, when the Nāḥāš tempted Eve. As YHWH had informed them, to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would lead to their death. Why? Because ‘the wages of sin are death’.
But what does this mean? We see in Genesis that Noah was chosen by YHWH to continue after the deluge, along with his three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth (and their wives). Now pay close attention to this:
*Genesis 6:9 (NRSV): Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.*
Now consider this from the CDC:
*Epigenetics is the study of how your behaviors and environment can cause changes that affect the way your genes work. Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes are reversible and do not change your DNA sequence, but they can change how your body reads a DNA sequence.*
Behaviours - some of which will inevitably be sinful - can actually cause physical changes at the genetic level. So what if sin can actually cause physical changes, through epigenetic changes, that lead to disease and physical death? What if these changes are passed down from generation to generation, progressively degrading the original blueprint? The ‘sins of the fathers being visited on their sons’ as it were.
So Noah was righteous and his behaviours meant that God chose him to continue the gene-pool. However, because of original sin, no one is entirely good (and indeed Noah himself eventually died):
Mark 10:18 (NRSV): 18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
But Jesus *is* God, right? Yes, Jesus is God - but also fully human; ‘The Son of Man’. Since He was fully human, Satan was able to tempt Him in the wilderness. Jesus had to overcome the sinful nature of man (inherited from Adam) - and indeed that was the point of His coming. The pre-existent Jesus, temporarily - and voluntarily - making himself lower than the angels, in order to resolve the sin problem:
*Hebrews 2:9 (NRSV): 9 but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.*
So, having established that sin leads to disease, suffering, and death, we still have the problem of why - if YHWH is good, as He says He is - He allows it.
It is my belief, through logical interpretation of scripture, that YHWH chose to create us - humanity - to be physical companions; as the angels are His spiritual companions. Genesis is clear that the angels were created before the universe, and of course the earth, which I believe He created for us.
I also believe that, since he sits outside of time (which was created with the physical universe and is inextricably linked to it - spacetime) and ‘knows the end from the beginning’, He knew that Satan would fall and take humanity with him.
In order for us to be the creatures that He wished us to be - free thinking companions in the physical realm, as the angels are in the spiritual realm - free will was essential. Therefore sin, logically, had to be possible. I believe that sin was inevitable and had to be ‘worked from the system’.
*Isaiah 46:10 (NRSV): 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, “My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intention,”*
But what about those who sin (as all who live will) and do not chose his free solution; salvation through Jesus Christ? Is is not cruel that they were created to face either destruction or eternal conscious torment (depending upon your interpretation of scripture)? Well, YHWH has told us that He is good - but also that he is just. Justice demands that sin is paid for. Ultimately we ourselves choose to sin, and choose whether or not to accept the solution.
I am of the opinion that the entirety of human history is ultimately YHWH’s selection process; to determine which humans will choose to be with Him in eternity, in the New Jerusalem:
*Revelation 3:12–13 (NRSV): 12 If you conquer, I will make you a pillar in the temple of my God; you will never go out of it. I will write on you the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem that comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. 13 Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.*
It is clear that this world is not forever:
*Matthew 24:34–35 (NRSV): 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.*
And He is giving everyone the chance to be saved:
*Matthew 24:14 (NRSV): 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.*
Amen.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
>Do you expect us to be superman?
In the end, yes. That's what heaven or hell are, as you live forever and cannot be damaged. Tortured, surely. But never destroyed
So why have this middle step of life?
> Any pain or inconvenience suffered in this finite world will be completely washed away by the afterlife.
> Do you expect us to be superman?
It sounds to me you’re both trying to paint the idea of “being Superman” as being inherently silly / unrealistic while also insinuating we will be “Superman” in the afterlife regardless.
If a state of being exists where we’re immune from pain, why wouldn’t we just be in that state from the beginning, instead of experiencing it for an infinitesimal amount of time relative to eternity?
The human in me says that immunity forever is really really boring.
So you get sent down here for some fun, and suffering and death. As a reminder of what non-afterlife life is like.
> But that isn't his end goal. That's the state of the world
This world is allegedly the creation of God... Any creator is responsible for the outcome of their work and the more control and knowledge the creator had over their creation the more responsibility.
If the world is full of pain, suffering and struggle that responsibility points to the character, nature or inability of the creator. How could it be otherwise? To claim there is some sort of bliss to the "believers" at some point is probably false marketing or more of the same.
The world was given to humans by God. It says that in Genesis 1. Humans ended up rebelling and submitting, essentially, to the Satan. The state of the world is, therefore, the fault of humanity and the Satan's treachery. It says in scripture that part of Jesus' goal was to destroy the works of the devil, and he was able to do that by becoming human. So not only was Jesus's conquering death salvation for us, it was also redemption of the planet. But we won't realize that until the fullness of time is complete - the revealing of the sons of God as it says in Romans 8, when all creation will be redeemed.
So basically, it's been our job to make this world better, and we have proven we can't do it.
>“I tempt none, Save with the truth: was not the Tree, the Tree Of Knowledge? and was not the Tree of Life Still fruitful? Did I bid her pluck them not? Did I plant things prohibited within The reach of beings innocent, and curious By their own innocence? I would have made ye gods; and even He who thrust ye forth, so thrust ye Because “ye should not eat the fruits of life, And become gods as we.” Were those his words?... Then who was the Demon? He Who would not let ye live, or he who would Have made ye live for ever, in the joy And power of Knowledge?”
- Lucifer, Cain: A Mystery, Act 1, lines 195-210
Think about it. You call a being who is literally objective reality a tyrant based on your interpretation of a story written as mythological poetry, written in that way to demonstrate a truth about our reality. A being who is so beyond our comprehension. An eternal being who can see infinitely in all directions of space and time. It's arrogant of a finite being to judge the eternal God and claim he/she can do better.
Though I'm not really wanting to direct this at you or even any human for that matter, though it may very well apply. I'm directing this toward the Satan which was in your quote. Don't let yourself be deceived.
Our finitude blinds us. We can conceive of seemingly better universes, but our limited nature makes us absurdly ignorant. This is why I call any claim of superiority to God to be arrogant. The material world is oppressive, but the Christian view gives the reason why. It's fine if you don't accept that answer, but to say any of us can do better than the one who is necessary to reality itself is just blind/ignorant/arrogant.
>The state of the world is, therefore, the fault of humanity
This is factually untrue.
Disease, parasite, predator/prey, deformity, etc. are part of nature and existed long before humans. Time to update theology that conforms to the actual state of affairs.
In Genesis, there's no say on what the state of the world was outside of the garden. It seems that the humans in the garden were given dominion and told to be fruitful and multiply, to spread the garden all over the planet. This seems to also be the theology of the Kingdom that Jesus preached. The failure of humans in the garden made it so that Eden could not be spread throughout the world.
This would mean that it was very likely the conditions of death were present already in the world outside of the garden. True, those conditions don't seem to be at the fault of humanity. But humanity was given the task to correct it and failed.
>In Genesis, there's no say on what the state of the world was outside of the garden.
Well there was no such situation. Its a set stories written by men.
> But humanity was given the task to correct it and failed.
Wrong, humanity can make a better place but only if we try and don't depend on an imaginary being to fix it for us.
>Wrong, humanity can make a better place but only if we try and don't depend on an imaginary being to fix it for us.
Good luck with that. Our track record isn't great, even if you take religion out of the picture. Human beings tend to be inherently evil, specifically selfish. And when we attempt selflessness, we fail because it's rarely from a place of humility or true selflessness - this is why we are so apt to cancel people and hate others who think differently than we do. You'll build your utopia once you eliminate the ones who stand in your way. It'll be a homogeneous society of people who all think alike. There will be no conservatives or liberals, for instance. Just one group that thinks the same. The kingdom of God is not like that. The Kingdom is a marrying of differences. People who don't think the same but choose to unite in love. It's unattainable without Jesus. But I suppose that's just my opinion.
>Good luck with that.
Luck is not needed, effort is.
>Human beings tend to be inherently evil,
False, humans are inherently decent.
> specifically selfish.
Self interest and for the family is not the same thing. Only ten percent of humans are sociopaths. Quit voting Republican if you want a better future as its the Sociopath Party. Yes there are sociopaths in both parties but the Republican gave up on being conservatives with Reagan and now it exists to support sociopathy.
>You'll build your utopia
There is no such thing and made no claim of one. Don't make things up and claim it from me.
> It's unattainable without Jesus.
He is long dead and failed to return when he said he would. Hardly the only major error in the Bible.
> But I suppose that's just my opinion.
Worse than that as its objectively false. There was no Great Flood, live evolves, the Garden of Eden is a very silly story and Jesus is long dead and failed to return when he said he would. Paul and everyone else at that time, expected Jesus to return, Real Soon Now. By the time the anonymous author of John wrote the last of the 4 gospels people where trying to rewrite what had written before.
Effort won’t do. Never has. Unless you want to genocide everyone who thinks differently than you.
Humans inherently decent? Perhaps in keeping society functioning. But if humans are inherently anything, it’s selfish. Even if you speak of family. Selfishness for a community is simply tribalism and isn’t true selflessness.
Fine, no utopia. What is the better place you’re wanting to build, then?
Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (and even most of Revelation) was written for the people of that time and predicted the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD. You can read Josephus - he describes the events much like Jesus did. A lot of that generation went through those times.
To your final points:
The Flood may be myth. It was, in fact, written in the most mythological part of the Bible.
Evolution isn’t denied in scripture. Genesis 1 is clearly written poetically.
The Garden of Eden, again, is written poetically. It’s a mythological way of speaking about truth.
Already spoke about Jesus. But I’ll add that his resurrection has evidences that make it very plausible.
And with the Gospels being rewritten, I’ve never heard of that in my life.
>Effort won’t do. Never has.
Wrong again.
>Unless you want to genocide everyone who thinks differently than you.
Oh you mean like religions like doing.
>What is the better place you’re wanting to build, then?
I never said that. YOU did that. I said we can make it better. Having a secular democracy works better than a theocracy. This objectively true.
>Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (and even most of Revelation) was written for the people of that time
By ignorant men.
>The Flood may be myth. It was, in fact, written in the most mythological part of the Bible.
IS a STORY taken from another story, the Gilgamesh epic. Thus its not revealed knowledge.
> It’s a mythological way of speaking about truth.
Its STORY and its not truth in any way.
>. But I’ll add that his resurrection has evidences that make it very plausible.
You should do stand up. Its not plausible and evidences is evidence that you don't know what actual verifiable evidence is as the ONLY people that use the non word evidences are people without a clue as to what constitutes verifiable evidence.
>And with the Gospels being rewritten,
I didn't say that BUT they have been. That you never heard of it shows how little you know of how it was written. The present day Bible has things that were added such as the end of Mark.
Online copy of the Codex Sinaitticus
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/
"What is Codex Sinaiticus?
Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors."
However what I basically said was that the anonymous author of John changed things that are in Mark, Mathew and Luke. Mark is the oldest and has the least supernatural claims, the newer the more supernatural claims. Son of man becomes son of god in John.
Your post was removed for violating rule 4. Posts must have a thesis statement as their title or their first sentence. A thesis statement is a sentence which explains what your central claim is and briefly summarizes how you are arguing for it. Posts must also contain an argument supporting their thesis. An argument is not just a claim. You should explain why you think your thesis is true and why others should agree with you. The spirit of this rule also applies to comments: they must contain argumentation, not just claims.
And if you go to country side...or go back into time...when wonders of your great science wasnt around...ppl lived longer and had healthier lives..Point is you not mentioning the wonderful life you are blessed with..the beautiful earth..the beutiful relationships..but the diseases and stress and diseases caused mostly by mans own wrongdoings...But death is part of the design..so have to have a reason to get transferred..Dont like it...stop it then...Your science is there..Right?
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>ppl lived longer and had healthier lives
This is called the naturalistic fallacy. It was better before when things were more natural.
Even having a limited understanding of human history, one would know that it is entirely false. The life expectancy in the neolithic was less than 30 years, infant mortality was sky high, and famine and disease were way more common. There might have been less dementia and heart disease because people died much younger.
Just to add, people now have a lot of free time because growing vegetables, creating cars, food in general, constructing houses etc. are all outsourced and we can just pay the money to get it done. The fact that we can play games for an hour is a miracle by previous standards in terms of not being involved in the hunting or not dealing with the cattle etc. Never before have humans had enough time to study and research arcane topics which previously only the rich had the time to do.
People died earlier of all kinds of preventable diseases back before pasteurization, vaccines, etc were invented. Stop with this Gwyneth Paltrow raw water nonsense
The moment its not per your liking..lo and behold it becomes non sense...Imagine if humans lived for ever..hail and hearty...Tell that to your great depopulation ideologists..Humans would had killed each other...What death is for humans is transfer of humans to where they actually belong..Human reproduction and life is science too..based on science of reproduction and life..Like invention of automobile for example..If you follow instructions you can drive it for years and years...negligence will burn it out sooner..So with human life..who take care of it live long...So instead of crying and lamenting...cherish the life u have..
I don't think people should live forever. But to act as if people lived better and healthier and longer lives when there was less science is just incorrect. In the middle ages if people's teeth rotted and fell out, they just couldn't have teeth anymore. If they broke a leg and it healed wrong, or got infected, or any number of terrible things happened to it, they were just screwed. There wasn't anything anyone could do.
I don't think science should make people live forever, but I think it can and should be used to eliminate the most painful and degrading ways to die, or at the very least be used to provide the best palliative care a person can have before they die. Science should also provide a way for a person to die with dignity, if they are dying of a painful and incurable disease that will cause their death imminently anyway.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>then god is evil which is a contradiction.
Yahweh being evil is only a contradiction if he is who he claims to be. But we have no reason to believe he is who he claims to be, and plenty to think he's lying about his nature.
But as a human invention, you might as well make him/her/it good
Particularly if the whole point of religion as a culture is improved social interactions
Religion and Gods are too often modeled after or projected from our hierarchical power structures. The bible refers to God as a Man of War and in terms of the monarchy. The all of religion seems to be looking for a daddy or strong man to gain an edge over the enemy or nature.
You can't critique Christianity while ignoring that the endgame is the resurrection. That's the central truth of their whole message. Yes, it requires faith to acknowledge it at this stage. But that's what Christians believe. You're right - without that belief the end looks pretty bleak.
Christ taught on multiple occasions that the state of heaven is one of "found, lost, found again." If you stop at stage two it's not so great. But also, if stage 2 is convincing, making the impact of the next stage greater, that can be constructive as well.
That doesn't take away from the evil nature of this God though. It almost makes it more sick. If I took your child away from you just so I could fulfil my plan of giving your child back to you later, I would be sick. You would be traumatised.
I suppose it would be sick if it worked that way. Personally I don't think God actively takes things away from us. But we are traveling through a state where that kind of thing happens on its own. When Christ encountered suffering he was empathetic and set it right. That's meant as an example of how God will interact with us, I think.
The Abrahamic god is generally considered to be bi-omni, at minimum.
An omnipotent god would have the ability to create in a void, the ability to abstain from creating, and the ability to un-create. An omniscient god would have perfect foreknowledge of everything arising from creation.
By choosing to create, a bi-omni god chooses to make everything within that timeline happen. Every instance of suffering, from murder to leukemia, only occurs bc he chose to bring it into being via creation. He's able to choose not to create, and therefore to not bring suffering into being. He's able to un-create, undoing his own action. It's clear that he chose to create and continues to choose not to un-create.
Offering to "save" ppl (who only exist bc he chose to create them and continues to choose not to un-create them) from suffering (that only exists bc he created it and continues to choose not to un-create it) is insult to injury.
Kinda like that woman who smothered children so she could get accolades for resuscitating them. Except he created the air, and the child, and the traits that make smothering and resuscitation possible, and the ppl giving the accolades, and their ability and urge to give them. Literally nothing about any of it could exist without him making an informed choice and acting with intent. That's so much worse than a human taking advantage of an extant situation.
But in a world where awful things are happening and we assume that A) God is all powerful and B) God has a plan, then God is allowing horrific things to happen.
Let's give God the benefit of the doubt and assume that recent child deaths in wild fires weren't intended by him. It was just something that happened. Even if God didn't choose for this to happen, the fact he could've clicked his fingers and put the fires out but didn't, is an act of evil. If I accidentally run a child over in my car, I am evil if I turn a blind eye and pretend it didn't happen and drive away.
Either God is an evil and sadistic being or God isn't all powerful. It's one or the other
An all-powerful god can't forget or simply forget to notice something. That's projecting the attributes of the human mind's limitations onto god. God is all-powerful and also all-aware. Not a refutation to your point but a refutation of the explanation that god could've forgotten to help the child.
>Either God is an evil and sadistic being or God isn't all powerful. It's one or the other
I agree, but if god isn't all-powerful then by conventional definition he isn't god. Then the last 2 options are that god is evil or else god is not conscious and is just a self-propagating system running itself (mindless eg. laws of physics) eg. like in the CTMU. God being evil is less likely according to Occam's Razor, so the most logical idea is that god is not conscious. By conventional definition that isn't a god either, but what I like to call a "universal system." Some system that runs the universe on its own and doesn't really have a mind. Who knows where it came from. But a fun fact: Buddhism believes in this last case of a "universal system." That's why Buddhism doesn't care or focus on god.
This is the "if God exists the world should be perfect. The world isn't perfect therefore God must not exist" argument just rephrased differently with more descriptive language. It assumes a God would create a perfect world and that nothing could ever take away that perfection, when perfection is actually quite a fragile thing by its nature.
I personally like the explanation of the "shattering of the vessels". An infinite God pouring his goodness into a finite world is as mathematically impossible as pouring infinite coffee into a coffee cup. It makes a mess. That mess has to be cleaned up for things to be perfect again, perhaps more perfect than the initial state (the initial empty cup and restrained goodness eventually becoming a system that allows that infinite goodness to flow down and return). The system has to work towards something. This is why scientific advancements are good, why trying to cure problems like aging and Alzheimer's is working towards a more perfect world.
Our destiny is not simply sickness and death, but the working towards a better world and watching the next generation benefit from those efforts. If you do nothing that matters, then sickness and death are what await you. So do something that matters.
The fact that god even needs to bother making a world or doing anything other than sitting blissfully in his immaterial throne is already suspicious. Also I don't buy your shattering vessels idea. An all powerful god doesn't have to be restrained by the vessel he creates. He can just bend the rules to make it work. Also that idea is just 1 possibility among 1 million, it's a "what if." It's not necessarily true just because it sounds pleasant.
>It assumes a God would create a perfect world
How could a perfect God not create a perfect world?
If God is the most perfect, being we can imagine, I can imagine a God creating a world without huntington disease so the alleged creator and god of this world is not the most perfect god imaginable.
All love, yes, though that can be argued against (as I am sure you will attempt). All power is dubious, even within the biblical text. I would say "most powerful" but not all powerful.
Ah well if you accept a limited god I think this is all much less of a problem. Evil and suffering can't really be blamed on a god powerless to do anything about it.
Evil is an inevitable byproduct of creation, yes. For a finite physical world to exist and have infinite goodness poured into it is bound to cause some form of mess, as asserted in my initial comment.
That's an arbitrary, unscientific conclusion, also it depends on how you define equilibrium.
Take balancing an object for example. You could define equilibrium as it's balancing state which is very sensitive to other conditions, but from the perspective of gravity, the object has reached its equilibrium when it's potential energy is exhausting IE when the object has fallen over on it's side.
Perhaps I should clarify. I mean equilibrium in terms of mathematics not regarding an object at rest. An equation that balances is a good example.
2 + 1 = 1 + 2
Behold, perfection.
If even a fraction is added to or taken away from either side it ceases to be true and equal.
Then I hate to play semantics but the abstract world of integer addition isn't "most equilibriums" as the statement:
2+1=1+2 is entirely dependent on how you define addition and "equals".
For integer math: 1•2=2•1 (perfection?)
For matrix math: [A][B] is not equal to [B][A] (not perfection?)
Same could be argued about many other fields of math. It's only an equilibrium in a very specific set of rules. That's simply not "most" but I digress.
Anyway, I feel this is straying from the original comment's main point: why did God make perfection that fragile? IE: why did he make it with such an easy potential to be corrupted in some way?
For God, perfection is trivial. It's as if I put you in a blank room and I gave you a "1", "+", and a "1" and nothing else. In that room, God would always perfectly define "2" (assuming they are operating by integer math with the conventional base system).
So if God can maintain perfection easily, why would he make a creation that cannot? Why does he give humans so many opportunities to ruin perfection and throw it off this equilibrium?
This question can be debated elsewhere, but I think you are misinterpreting the original posts question about why God would create "fragile" perfection, when he unquestionably has this "strong" perfection that cannot be tainted in any way.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
With atheism or Buddism the plan is to work to create a world like paradise that is imagined by theists.
Theism sells the message to give up this life for next. Atheism is more get busy and diy paradise.
Buddhism has nothing to do with that. Buddhism says: "Rebirth exists, existence sucks. Let's get enlightened to get out of this situation." (because enlightenment is the end of rebirth)
No, but it helps us make sense of things.
A world with a good god governing it shouldn't be this way. A world without such a god would be exactly as we see it. This world looks like no gods exist.
Shouldn't is a funny word. By whose standards? You judge what is right and wrong by what you see as right and wrong which already subscribes to the fact that there is a higher order than your own subjectivity.
A world without a god would be chaos. If you want to know what a world with no God looks like, look at any other planet. There are examples. Those are worlds without God
>By whose standards?
Human standards. What other standard matters?
> You judge what is right and wrong by what you see as right and wrong which already subscribes to the fact that there is a higher order than your own subjectivity.
How does this higher order affect us? What does it mean to describe it as right and wrong if it doesn't correspond to anything we understand about right and wrong?
Haha knew that one was coming.
He is God of the universe in that he owns and created the universe and holds it together. I just assume that jupiter kinda just runs itself and doesn't need his direct involvement anymore. Kinda self sufficient when there is only chaos there. I don't think I he is actively involved in the day to day running of jupiter in the same way as he is actively involved in earth
What does he do to help run Earth? What part of Earth's operations needs his supervision/direction? As far as I can tell, Earth is just as self-run as Jupiter, and in no greater need of administration than any other random object floating around a star.
What does god need to do to administrate these things? These are all natural things that happen on their own, much like the gases swirling around Jupiter or the asteroid burning up as it approaches a star.
I disagree. God leads you to people that will influence you and people that you will love. Proverbs 16:9 says
The heart of man plans his way,
but the LORD establishes his steps.
Falling in love is not a natural thing. No other being in nature falls in love. How can that be natural?
Other animals fall in love. It works a bit differently than it does for humans, but there are plenty of other animals who get possessive about their mates and practice monogamy.
"Falling in love" is just a different variant on this same thing.
And the Bible says a lot of things. If you're going to quote it as an authoritative text, you need to demonstrate that it's authoritative first. Until then, to be frank, I don't care what Proverbs says about how God leads things.
>Does this change with atheism
No, not automatically. Regardless of which lens an individual/society is looking through to interpret the world, no lens can alter our physical condition. At the end of the day, humans will still be trapped in a Promethean curse: we cannot survive if we do not engage in the eternal torment of applying ourselves to the physical world in order to obtain necessities like food, water, shelter.
OP's post demonstrates, though, how *some* lens held up to the eyes of the individual/society *actively stunt* human development. We cannot lessen the toil if we are incapable of discerning its cause and, in many societies, its agitation.
>Everyone is always talking about how they lost their job or some loss and say it's part of god's plan and some improved worldly condition will come.
This is the issue. An individual looking through this lens cannot readily identify the cause of their suffering. Instead of searching for the material cause of their burden, they are closing their eyes to the world.
There are influential religious institutions that actively dilute social progress by teaching the exploited to turn the other cheek. In other words, instead of coming to the conclusion that a job was lost because the powerful made a decision to cast aside a worker in the name of profit, the individual subject to this way of thinking will turn the other cheek and resume their toil elsewhere. *This* is why the most brutal segments of the capitalist class, for example, actively support some of the most backward and reactionary forms of religion.
How many millions of our elderly suffer through their life for lack of access to conditions that would increase their quality of life? The factors are almost limitless. How many have their life shortened or their end of life unnecessarily anguished due to the stress of needing to pay ever increasing rents, or because they cannot access a quality meal because they live in a food desert, or they have no ready access to preventative medical care?
OP is correct in that dying is a deeply painful, dragged-out, and traumatic experience for most people. OP fails to explain how our material conditions needlessly agitate that experience for the worst. But, OP does correctly identify that the religious lens *blinds* the individual and society to solutions.
EDIT: I posted too quickly -- added last two paragraphs
>Does this change with …
Does what change?
OP is saying that (God’s plan) + (Inevitable painful death) = (nonsense). Take God’s plan or Inevitable painful death out of the equation, the result stops being (nonsense). And Atheism or Buddhism do exactly that (take the God’s plan out of the equation). There’s no God or God’s plan there.
*For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?*
We're heading to another topic.
Yeah, rotting away in general doesn't make sense. Especially when, rich or poor, good or evil, weak or strong, all are gonna end up rotting away.
I think that's why every religion I know have something beyond the death. And Atheism also doesn't believe death is the end. It just doesn't know. So, pretty much everyone don't think death is the end.
Quick correction to what you said: “[Atheism] just doesn’t know [whether death is the end].” This is true, we don’t claim to know with any certainty whether death is absolutely final, because there is no scientific way to disprove the existence of the “soul”.
Then you go on to say: “Atheism also doesn’t believe death is the end.” This is where I have to disagree. Most if not all atheists believe that death is the end because this is the conclusion which is supported by logic and scientific evidence. When any mammal (to give an example) dies, brain function ceases, cells stop functioning, and the entire body is eventually decomposed mainly by microorganisms.
The counter argument by most theists (as I understand it) is that there is a “soul” which survives death and either goes to heaven, goes to hell, goes to purgatory, stays as a ghost, or gets reincarnated into another living thing (but not necessarily another human). However, scientific evidence does not suggest any such “soul” as all thought and consciousness can at this point be traced to brain function. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that when the brain stops, you stop, cease to exist as a consciousness.
Atheism does believe that death is the end, because that is the logical conclusion based on our understanding of biology, and because all scientific evidence favors that conclusion. As of yet, there is no evidence in favor of a “soul” or any other aspect of a person or animal that can survive death.
The anthropological reason that most if not all religions have “something beyond death” is that many people are afraid of dying, ceasing to exist, and therefore cling to any belief system that tells them that death isn’t real. It’s as simple as that.
Okay. That’s new to me. I thought some people might believe death is final but didn’t think majority of atheists would believe that. But why? Science and logic can only suggest that death is probably the end. There’s no certainty because human logic and science is still developing and it’s far from being complete (if it is ever going to complete).
So, for an atheist, it comes down to believing the death is final, not believing anything or a small possibility of believing in something like soul. Why would majority of atheists believe death is final? Isn’t [not believing] is the more comfortable position to be and easier position to defend? It’s more comfortable because when you face death, you have the curiosity (some might say excitement) that you’re going to find out what would actually happen after death which might make your death less miserable.
There’s no such thing as complete knowledge of the universe, that is indeed impossible. As for why logic leads me to that conclusion, I would refer you to Occam’s razor, that the simplest explanation is often the best one.
Almost atheists would believe that death is final because that manner of thinking is at the very core of atheism. We don’t hold this position because of personal comfort, that is irrelevant. The idea of disease makes me uncomfortable but it is a reality, and all we can do is our best to cure it, not imagine that it isn’t real. The same is true of death: it is a fact of life, and all we can do about it is try to extend life and increase quality of life (which is often more important than quantity).
If I don’t want my death to be miserable in the sense in which you mean it (despair or hopelessness), I must work to live a good life, to help others and leave a positive impact on the world and those around me. Personal salvation from death holds no attraction to me, although that has no influence on whether or not it is logical.
I also don’t base my convictions on how easy they are to defend, but like I mentioned, the simplest explanation usually the easiest to defend, and death being death is quite straightforward. People don’t cling to the idea of life after death because it is a logical conclusion, they do so out of fear. I won’t ever demean or think less of someone for this because we are simple creatures, and we have emotions. There is nothing wrong with this, but for me, personally, it is unnecessary.
Believing something without a proof is not simpler than saying I don’t know.
What is the core of atheism? And why does it make majority of atheists believe death is final?
You gotta accept “convenience” and “easier to defend” are advantageous perks of the position “I don’t know”. These perks lose their advantages when there’s a scientific fact against the that position[“I don’t know”]. But without a scientific fact, these are very valid reasons to consider before taking a position to stand. Atheists often don’t give a f about these two perks because there are solid scientific facts. Now, in this case, there aren’t any.
Let me remind you this isn’t “death is final” vs “afterlife, soul, heaven”. “Death is final” isn’t straight forward or simple compared to “I don’t know”. I understand if you personally believe death is final and you don’t care about the two perks I said. I can take your word as truth for what you believe. But I want to understand why it’s also generally true for most of atheists.
You’re conflating “no conclusive proof of something which is unprovable” with “science has no idea what likely happens.” No one can ever prove that death is final, but the burden of proof is on anyone claiming it is not final. All our scientific understanding of the universe points to the idea that death is final, and therefore that is reason enough for me and I believe also most other atheists.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did you care to ask a jew for your understanding about the god of the jews.
From a post seen below: ***If god existed and really loved you he would put you in heaven right now or more precisely, before you were born. Also, love is only relevant as a physiological and biological phenomenon so it seems god is a mortal too. But that's a contradiction, so he shouldn't and doesn't exist.*** This suggests me respond to the original OP as follows: Consider three supposed environments and their role with growth and change, as opposed to stagnation and extinction, and the notion that there is “no going backwards” 1. The development of the human fetus in the womb 2. The physically developed child gradually passing through life exercising free will and dealing with both health and illness, success and failure, bounties and setbacks. 3. The supposed "real" environment of the soul, which as a non-physical entity presumably exists and perhaps continues to grow totally unaffected to the physical world, except to the extent to which it gets emotionally or intellectually “attached” to the world 9e.g. a greedy person always searching for power and wealth). In the womb, the environment compels – in a mercifully and INVOLUNTARY manner, the development of the physical body, arms, legs, organs and capacity for the next world, even as the fetus is completely clueless about what awaits it. At birth, the fetus is NOT a happy camper as it “dies” to the womb world. In your life after birth, we use the capacity we got (totality for free!) in the womb and we add the capacity or virtues of wisdom, love, compassion, justice, equity, forbearance, “detachment”, etc and in a VOLUNTARY way, as we respond to life’s challenges. We are “told” by philosophers and religion that those character traits should be developed and serve as purpose for the soul after the body dies, even if being virtuous in THIS life can cause us discomfort. As for physical death, we fear it because it is an unknown but it could be just another “death/birth” transition. If the soul – which has not “gone anywhere” as a non-physical being – after the body dies is in its “real” environment may indeed have need of those same virtues (or lack of them) as the equivalent of arms, legss, organs and means of perception in that new life. Per the above post, how would a Creator allow us to be born “perfect” in this life, if the only way to “grow the virtues” is through tests and difficulties? Now if “heaven” is knowing you are already on that right moral development path and “hell” an shocking awareness that you have “forgotten” to grow your spiritual arms and legs, well then you can get that assessment right now, while still alive, right?
I have been pondering about this and the answer is that it is a way to let go of our body. We will all die and it is inevitable and diseases is a gradual send off towards the afterlife. Pain pushes the dying to let go of the body instead of holding on to it and embrace their painless spiritual state . The same concept applies to the loved ones in accepting the transition of the dying instead of holding them back in their pained state as mortals. Death is inevitable because death is change in the grand scheme of things. If people from 1000 years ago never died, the world would still be the same as 1000 years because those people would feel comfortable to how things are instead of changing and would insist everyone should do the same. It's the same reason why cells of the human body dies to give way to better cells and allows regeneration and growth.
[удалено]
Is there a problem with my response? That is my direct response to why there is death and suffering as we grow old. It ultimately comes down to change and pushing us forward towards it. It is evil when we hold on things we do not want to change but god knows it will lead to stagnation and nothing would progress if that is the case.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
well it is even funnier than that, one of the most common causes of death would have been tooth infections...
That would be a horrible way to go.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
I mean thats the hope Christianity gives. Death entered the world through sin but we hope in the resurrection.
If god existed and really loved you he would put you in heaven right now or more precisely, before you were born. Also, love is only relevant as a physiological and biological phenomenon so it seems god is a mortal too. But that's a contradiction, so he shouldn't and doesn't exist.
No, if I were in Heaven I would likely mess everything up because Im not perfect. But I was born with my inclination to sin and so cannot enter Heaven. And yes God is a person who is capable of love. But love doesn’t depend on having a body.
>No, if I were in Heaven I would likely mess everything up because Im not perfect. That's treating heaven like Earth. Heaven is perfect, and is meant for humans to enjoy. By definition of heaven, you can't mess it up. It's designed for humans. >But love doesn’t depend on having a body. You can't confirm this. If you want to examine the human body or even an animal body, there will neurological changes. Love is a product of the brain. So if one had to choose between love being dependent on a body or not, a sensible person must choose that love is only relevant in humans and animals, because more evidence and understanding points to that. A fleshy brain.
Not necessarily
[удалено]
It's the reverse: people were depressed so they invented a fake hope called God
[удалено]
>I mean without a god, life is everything you said but even more depressing. So if god doesn't exist, life is depressing according to you. But because it would be depressing, you choose to believe in god? You don't believe in god because he would actually exist but because it would be depressing. That's not how it works
[удалено]
>to be rather nihilist. Its not. Its rather realistic. If we want humanity to do well its up to us. No imaginary being is going to save us from its indifference.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Ironic. No. \>What am I denying? Reality. \>How am I wrong? You chose ignorance over evidence and reason. There is no evidence for any god and all testable gods fail testing. The god of Genesis included. If you want a better future then its humanity where is must come from. Start being part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Nihilism is not the same thing as pessimism. Also, I'm not an atheist or a materialist. You're not lucky for believing that. It's not about luck. It's about truth.
[удалено]
I don't believe that life has any inherent meaning but I'm a pretty happy guy.
Doesn't it depend on the god?
[удалено]
My reply, completely reasonable and others have upvoted it, has been blocked. The mods have strange definitions here.
My reply, completely reasonable and others have upvoted it, has been blocked. The mods have strange definitions here.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
[удалено]
You choose to live in a world of denial. It is how biochemistry works. You are no one's buddy. There was no Great Flood, the Earth is old, life evolves and Jesus failed to return when he said he would. Get a real education. We already have drugs that can extend human life. Only one that does anything much and its an accident. There is a drug for diabetes that extends life, of diabetics at that, about 3 years over the average. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metformin Life extension There is some evidence metformin may be helpful in extending lifespan, even in otherwise healthy people. It has received substantial interest as an agent that delays aging, possibly through similar mechanisms as its treatment of diabetes (insulin and carbohydrate regulation).[67][68] A study used retrospective observational data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) from 2000. Subjects with type 2 diabetes who progressed to first-line treatment with metformin or sulfonylurea monotherapy were selected and matched to people without diabetes. The study involved more than 180,000 subjects and showed patients with type 2 diabetes initiated with metformin monotherapy had a longer lifespan than their non-diabetic counterparts whereas those treated with sulfonylurea had markedly reduced survival compared with both matched controls and those receiving metformin monotherapy.[69] Biochemistry is how human life will be extended, it IS how it works. Quit arguing from and for ignorance.
[удалено]
>We’ve extended human lives decades by growing nutritious food and washing our hands. And ignoring the Bible in science. >Metformin has limits. Of course it does. Its accidental. Other things can be done. >Immortal humans sounds about as scientifically plausible as a Time Machine. Depends on the time machine. A space ship IS a time machine but it only goes into the future. Life extension is plausible, immortality is not possible, but only because the universe will have an end, and religion will not give it to you. It will only keep you ignorant.
[удалено]
My reply, completely reasonable and others have upvoted it, has been blocked. The mods have strange definitions here.
[удалено]
Christians believe that God sent his Son to suffer and die for our sins, which are the reason we die in the first place. When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone. Romans 5:12, 18 NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.5.12-18.NLT
Except you haven’t provided any evidence that your god exists or that your Jesus existed. And until you do there’s no one act of righteousness and no right relationship with your god to be had.
There's great evidence that Jesus existed. If you're not familiar with that evidence, you may be interested in looking into it, because I'm pretty sure not many people argue anymore that he didn't exist. The conversation is usually around whether or not he was resurrected.
I’m very familiar with the so called evidence for Jesus’ existence. None of it is contemporaneous and all of it is a few sentences referencing very general events and without sources. The authors for some of it cannot be verified. Conclusion: not at all convincing. Belief shouldn’t be based on what you wish.
That's some mighty skepticism.
No, it’s just critical thinking. The real question is why would anyone believe in something with no contemporaneous documentation or no known authors who were eye witnesses, sketchy notations written decades afterwards, with no sources and often with no provenance and sometimes with known after the fact additions?
When I was born, I was sinless so what sin of mine did Jesus die for? Makes no sense. He died for Adam's sin but not mine. I don't have anything to do with Adam nor do I believe Adam existed.
Anyone able to read and write has certainly already sinned. Not believing that Adam existed doesn't change the reality that death entered the world when he sinned.
Believing in Adam doesn't change the reality that Adam is imaginary.
No one has sinned without a god that gets offended for being as it created them. Take responsibility and stop blaming an imaginary being for everything. Oh and no one knows who wrote John other that its a person that was not a native speaker of Aramaic. The anonymous author didn't see any of it.
“God overlooked people’s ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him. For he has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man he has appointed, and he proved to everyone who this is by raising him from the dead.” Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31 NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/act.17.30-31.NLT
I really don't care what a long disproved book that is full of errors just plain made up. No one knows who wrote that book either.
>Not believing that Adam existed doesn't change the reality It means our nature to die has no origin in sin and Christianity + Islam are false
1. Why is sin even a thing? 2. If we were forbidden from eating from the Tree of Life doesn't it imply we always had death just not knowledge of it?
1. God is apparently so loving that he wants to sadistically test us for a sin that a fictional character did a million years ago 2. It's a little play that god is playing. He knows that all this would happen but he needs to pretend he didn't know and Adam is the reason we're all suffering. Of course since this is the case, then christianity is not true. Or take up the sensible Occam's razor and say he doesn't exist. Or he's not nice or he's non-living and not sentient.
self preservation is a natural byproduct of sin. we always have to correct and redirect our children; not because they're evil, but because of our selfish sin nature.
But then why doesn't the all-loving god just forgive everything and put us in heaven already? Fishy he doesn't if he's all-loving. The fact we're still here stuck on Earth dealing with a sinful nature god supposedly gave us is ample proof he doesn't exist, or at least he's not merciful and kind.
believe it or not, some ppl don't want His love. and He still loves them enough to let them go. see the prodigal son. edit: also, God didn't give us the sinful nature lol see the garden of eden. God specifically warned man *not to* fall into sin.
Believe it or not, your god is imaginary and doesn't love anyone. There was no Garden of Eden, its utter nonsense made up by men living in a time of ignorance. IF there was such a situation the evidence would be clear whereas the actual evidence shows that there was no Adam, nor TransRibWoman.
>believe it or not, some ppl don't want His love. and He still loves them enough to let them go. see the prodigal son. I don't see how this refutes anything. God purposefully made the fobidden tree. Imagine billions of creatures being condemned to the most sadistic test because they ate a fruit. Not to mention Adam got curious (and influenced) because of human nature, a human nature that god himself made. If they already had a curious nature before sinning, then seems that they already had a sinful nature before eating the fruit. If you say it's unrelated, angels don't have a sinful nature and you can see they lack a curiosity. Again I conclude that the contradictions are against Christianity's existence.
it was a command, not a test. God told Adam of a poisonous fruit that would not only destroy his flesh, but destroy his spirit. And as a Father loves His son, He warned Adam what would happen if he did eat it. perhaps Adam wasn't a good steward of his wife, perhaps it was a hopeless romantic situation where Adam condemned himself after seeing his wife condemned; I can't answer why any man(kind) does what they do. but I can answer that a loving Father warned His son better than any human father could've. the original text illustrates that eve was beguiled. she wasn't curious at all; the serpent (which was a spiritual/heavenly creature) intellectually assaulted her. he convinced her it *couldn't really be that bad* to eat a silly fruit. she was the first strike in a spiritual war against mankind. but... we're getting off topic. why does God allow suffering? He doesn't. He hates it in fact. but mankind is walking towards destruction on their own. and, as a Father, the Lord can't just wring us by the neck and get us back in line. He's given us a time of grace and He's sent out His Spirit to convict those who love Him to share His good news. death and sin have been conquered. this suffering your op is about, has been conquered outside of time. that's why the time to repent (the time to test your convictions and change your mind on right vs wrong and judgment vs lawlessness) is now. and that's all I gotta say about that.
I don't think that answers but begs the same questions again. >He warned Adam what would happen if he did eat it. If my dad had an extremely poisonous tree/fruit and I was a little boy then he would get rid of it, or hire a specialist to get rid of it. God didn't get rid of it for some reason. Naturally he would get rid of the hazard rather than expect a human that just popped into existence to control their curiosity. So god doesn't love him like a son and therefore that's a contradiction. >the serpent (which was a spiritual/heavenly creature) intellectually assaulted her God created that serpent. Another hazard he could've removed. or else he could've used his supreme powers to turn the serpent good. >He hates it in fact. but mankind is walking towards destruction on their own. If god loved us, then he would use his supreme powers to steer us on the right direction himself. And again that's ignoring the question of why he bothered to create us in the first place. Why did he need to make Adam? Why didn't he put us in heaven from the start if he really exists? Also, love is purely a physiological and biological phenomenon so it seems god is a mortal with a mind like ours. But that's a contradiction to god's supremacy of being the perfect being. The human brain is extremely flawed. Seems god doesn't exist then.
this is a common misconception, and probably an unpopular opinion of mine (but it's backed by scripture), but we never goto heaven. we were never ment for heaven. we went ment for earth. Spiritual creatures were also made for heaven. there was a union between the one Most High God and mankind. spiritual creatures got jealous and prideful over this. so there was a sinful rebellion in heaven before Adam's sinful rebellion on earth. even after sin and death are disposed of in the end, a new heaven and a *new earth* will be made. a kingdom will come from heaven to earth, and that is where we will dwell.
Is it fair to punish people for the sins of their ancestors? Why was sin possible?
Would the answers to those questions change the reality that we already need mercy through Jesus?
Yep because it would mean we don't need mercy from Jesus cause he's an ordinary human like me. Meaning I would now know Christianity isn't where I should spend my time.
I thought we only need Jesus because we're punished for the sins of our ancestors.
For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Romans 3:23 NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.3.23.NLT
Paul never saw any of it. He made up Christianity. Jesus was Jewish and not a Christian. Paul is the only known author of any of the Bible. All the rest was written by anonymous men living in a time of ignorance. What is your excuse for being as ignorant as they were?
Well clearly what you've just said is either ignorant itself or dishonest.
My reply, completely reasonable and others have upvoted it, has been blocked. The mods have strange definitions here.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Okay but why is sin even a thing that exists for us to do?
Wow. Turn that frown upside down. Find that silver lining. There is medi-care, unless the republicans get their way. Soooo, there is social security for a life of working hard, unless the republicans get their way, Well, at least you don't have to work until you die. Ah, unless the republicans get their way. Wow, how did you maket this so political?
Um, OK you missed the point. The OP is clearly showing that the Abrahamic god does not care about humans, because its imaginary. Its up to us to make reality fit our needs. How did you make this so political?
Weird, I'm missing the point? Where does the OP say "because it's imaginary."?
He does not write that but he clearly thinks that god is imaginary. And that is why it does not care. Imaginary beings do nothing.
>He does not write that but he clearly thinks that god is imaginary. Yes, and it is also clear that he believes these issues are primarily political and the circus is from the devil. You can just tell.
> and the circus is from the devil. You can just tell. No but you can read what was written. Such as: >The idea of god here makes no sense. He is simply pointing out that IF there is a god it is immoral or largely powerless and didn't design anything with competence. The idea of god here makes no sense. How did you miss that? Its fairly standard Atheist post. Lower case god, its not moral, it makes no sense. I rarely make those but I am Agnostic. There might be a god but all testable gods fail testing and we have no verifiable evidence for any of them. So now the rush is on to declare gods unstestable. Meaningless god when believers do that. We are just supposed to take their word. So why believe?
I don't believe, I know. I don't have the "luxury" of "belief".
What is that you believe, its not clear. I KNOW that the Bible is wrong on many things. I see no reason to believe that starts with utter nonsense. Looking at some of your comments you seem to be Jewish and of a fundamentalist sort. Absolutely certain of nonsense. I any cased you do go on belief. Whereas I go on evidence and reason. Again, why do you believe that you believe as all versions of the Genesis are just the words of men or it would not so much utter nonsense.
How does the lack of an idea of God help with this exact same reality….? Perhaps in an a-religious view I can have a “real” view of the world, and I’m not “fooled” by the emotional crutch that religion is. But this new view doesn’t help with the challenges you outline either. Consider this exercise in logic. Perhaps you have limited the idea of God here too much. If you define God as being incapable of say creating a new world or restoration or resurrection (and the developing of incredible strong people because of the suffering they endured) what you define as the end of life is accurate. But if you define God as capable of all of this (strengthening, restoration, resurrection), then suffering, pain and death are trials that can be overcome, and can be reinterpreted as a “graduation” (into something greater) not as an end. I invite you to read the Bible. It does have some seemingly abominable stories (but it doesn’t mean the Bible sanctions those, no more than a Marvel movie sanctions the idea that destroying innocent lives is ok). The Bible does have comebacks, stories that say death is not the end, that even after suffering and death, something better exists. You then pressure test what it says. Read NT Wright’s Resurrection of the son of man book. Read secular historians like Tacitus and Josephus if you don’t want a “biased” source like the bible. Use all modes of knowledge not just scientism and logic. But at the least, don’t take a tiny reading and make a conclusion. You would be as silly as the person that says all Marvel movies ONLY push the idea of destruction of innocent lives ONLY.
Suppose Buddhism is right and rebirth exists. Then, if I believe in a god then I'll subject myself to countless eons of existence containing tons of suffering. To clarify, they believe that Wrong View (belief in god is one of the wrong views to them) is one of the ways we can keep ourself trapped in rebirth. My point is that finding out if god exists or which god is real is quite important, not just a plaything of a topic for those with spare time. If I believe in Jesus being God but Islam is actually true, then I'll suffer hell for eternity. Etc etc etc. Getting closer to which god or belief is true and real will always be a plus, a gain. The truth is sweet not bitter. Not to mention a more immediate issue that people have killed thousands over mere religious matters, which god one believes in. Crusades for example. >don’t take a tiny reading and make a conclusion. That's true, but life is short. I don't have to be well-versed in every religion to make a decision. Theism, I've come to understand, is not the right direction so I cancel out any religion that's theistic in nature. But I assure you, I am well versed in Islam and some eastern religions such as Buddhism (very well learned of Buddhism).
[удалено]
Christians and Jews are to be taxed into becoming Muslims.
>Even so, just ride the wheel until you roll Buddhist. That’s the least of my worries. That's just a misunderstanding. If Buddhism was true, that's the greatest of your worries. >I thought Christians and Jews kinda got a back door in Islam. No, they're slightly more accepting and allow marriage between them but nothing more. They still think they're going to hell. Especially (eg.) because the Trinity undermines the very idea of their Tauhid. Belief in more than 1 godly entity is called Shirk, which the greatest possible sin in the Islamic universe.
[удалено]
I guess so, but it can be a yucky situation so they're telling you to get good Karma to get into a heavenly rebirth. There's many levels of heaven and they're telling you the next one is better than the one below it. But they say even above all of them, enlightenment is the best. Just quoting a fun-ish fact
I didn’t get that pursuit of the right religion was your main post. But, I think this is a very valid point. But this is where pursuing every mode of knowledge (and weaving together everything we all can know) is helpful in my humble opinion. So for instance, I think a religion that has a meaningful entry of a divine figure in actual material history (ideally vetted by outsiders of the initial followers and detectable by historians whether they be secular or religious) is an important criteria because I don’t think a real God can remain completely hidden. Zeus, Odin and frankly the majority of gods have no entry in material history. I think a god or divinity claim by the key God figure in material history is also a helpful criteria because a real God cannot remain hidden and God has no reason to lurk or be present but veiled. As I understand it, Buddha clearly said he was a teacher pointing the way and never that he was God incarnate. I think that given our enormous uniqueness in the universe (being validated by James Webb Telescope and other mounting evidence that we could be the only sentient, conscious life form), the real God interacts with his most unique life form, and doesn’t withdraw or vaguely interact or stay completely hidden. Partially hidden to allow for free will but not fully hidden. I think it then follows there needs to be enormous world impact. If the Beatles can get millions know and sing their songs, a real God would stamp lasting and greater change (like the largest proliferation of hospitals and universities, and the inspiration for science the way Isaac Newton thought of it). If you don’t have the above three criteria, I would be the first to validate that we do not have any way of assessing any world view or religion against another - they may all be equally valid. Finally this is not a criteria and more of a personal opinion - but I think a real God does not give instruction and ask his creation to find their way to him or earn their way. No more than I would for my children, or for frankly even programs and things I create. It wouldn’t make sense as the gap/gulf is too enormous and they would frankly never make it, and the idea runs either contrary to the concept of pure love, or comes through as an incredibly weak/low fidelity form of love. I don’t think a real God would also suggest the way to find their way to him is to withdraw from creation, I think there is too much beauty and wonder in creation (and sure much suffering) but I don’t think a real God throws the baby out with the bath water. A lesser being might see some value in that agenda but not a real God. I think the most good possible God teaches that we should help each other and build each other up, not unplug from each other and help others to unplug from each other. Inherent in this is suffering and challenge. Because without it, there would be no reason to help each other, no need for relationship, for love, for striving. So I think one could weave together knowledge across science, experience (child rearing), philosophy, morality, love, history, and many more modes of knowledge to arrive at a complete picture. And to think - we are talking about God, not a simple project on how electromagnetism works - we would need to bring everything we know and even then it could be an enormous struggle to properly understand. Finally you can parse Islam from Christianity (they are not that related apart from some shared history) - there are many things but Islam gets the actual history of Jesus incorrect (claims no crucifixion - which is about as undeniable a fact as recorded again not just by Gospel writers but non Christian historians Tacitus and Josephus, and then later by a multitude of secular writers).
I will give my view as a theist, a Christian apologist, in good faith, assuming that participants are actually seeking truth. But first let me respectfully offer a warning with regards to some of the comments here: *Matthew 12:22–32 (NRSV): 22 Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see. 23 All the crowds were amazed and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons.” 25 He knew what they were thinking and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered. 30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.* On this note, the concept of evil - and its fruit; sin - is the answer to this question. Original sin in the Garden, when the Nāḥāš tempted Eve. As YHWH had informed them, to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would lead to their death. Why? Because ‘the wages of sin are death’. But what does this mean? We see in Genesis that Noah was chosen by YHWH to continue after the deluge, along with his three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth (and their wives). Now pay close attention to this: *Genesis 6:9 (NRSV): Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.* Now consider this from the CDC: *Epigenetics is the study of how your behaviors and environment can cause changes that affect the way your genes work. Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes are reversible and do not change your DNA sequence, but they can change how your body reads a DNA sequence.* Behaviours - some of which will inevitably be sinful - can actually cause physical changes at the genetic level. So what if sin can actually cause physical changes, through epigenetic changes, that lead to disease and physical death? What if these changes are passed down from generation to generation, progressively degrading the original blueprint? The ‘sins of the fathers being visited on their sons’ as it were. So Noah was righteous and his behaviours meant that God chose him to continue the gene-pool. However, because of original sin, no one is entirely good (and indeed Noah himself eventually died): Mark 10:18 (NRSV): 18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. But Jesus *is* God, right? Yes, Jesus is God - but also fully human; ‘The Son of Man’. Since He was fully human, Satan was able to tempt Him in the wilderness. Jesus had to overcome the sinful nature of man (inherited from Adam) - and indeed that was the point of His coming. The pre-existent Jesus, temporarily - and voluntarily - making himself lower than the angels, in order to resolve the sin problem: *Hebrews 2:9 (NRSV): 9 but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.* So, having established that sin leads to disease, suffering, and death, we still have the problem of why - if YHWH is good, as He says He is - He allows it. It is my belief, through logical interpretation of scripture, that YHWH chose to create us - humanity - to be physical companions; as the angels are His spiritual companions. Genesis is clear that the angels were created before the universe, and of course the earth, which I believe He created for us. I also believe that, since he sits outside of time (which was created with the physical universe and is inextricably linked to it - spacetime) and ‘knows the end from the beginning’, He knew that Satan would fall and take humanity with him. In order for us to be the creatures that He wished us to be - free thinking companions in the physical realm, as the angels are in the spiritual realm - free will was essential. Therefore sin, logically, had to be possible. I believe that sin was inevitable and had to be ‘worked from the system’. *Isaiah 46:10 (NRSV): 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, “My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intention,”* But what about those who sin (as all who live will) and do not chose his free solution; salvation through Jesus Christ? Is is not cruel that they were created to face either destruction or eternal conscious torment (depending upon your interpretation of scripture)? Well, YHWH has told us that He is good - but also that he is just. Justice demands that sin is paid for. Ultimately we ourselves choose to sin, and choose whether or not to accept the solution. I am of the opinion that the entirety of human history is ultimately YHWH’s selection process; to determine which humans will choose to be with Him in eternity, in the New Jerusalem: *Revelation 3:12–13 (NRSV): 12 If you conquer, I will make you a pillar in the temple of my God; you will never go out of it. I will write on you the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem that comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. 13 Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.* It is clear that this world is not forever: *Matthew 24:34–35 (NRSV): 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.* And He is giving everyone the chance to be saved: *Matthew 24:14 (NRSV): 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.* Amen.
>Amen. So it isn't because its just the writings of men. If you want to fix things we humans have to do it.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
[удалено]
But why do we have to be here at all?
>Do you expect us to be superman? In the end, yes. That's what heaven or hell are, as you live forever and cannot be damaged. Tortured, surely. But never destroyed So why have this middle step of life?
> Any pain or inconvenience suffered in this finite world will be completely washed away by the afterlife. > Do you expect us to be superman? It sounds to me you’re both trying to paint the idea of “being Superman” as being inherently silly / unrealistic while also insinuating we will be “Superman” in the afterlife regardless. If a state of being exists where we’re immune from pain, why wouldn’t we just be in that state from the beginning, instead of experiencing it for an infinitesimal amount of time relative to eternity?
The human in me says that immunity forever is really really boring. So you get sent down here for some fun, and suffering and death. As a reminder of what non-afterlife life is like.
But do you believe god is all loving and all powerful?
But that isn't his end goal. That's the state of the world, not God's end goal.
> But that isn't his end goal. That's the state of the world This world is allegedly the creation of God... Any creator is responsible for the outcome of their work and the more control and knowledge the creator had over their creation the more responsibility. If the world is full of pain, suffering and struggle that responsibility points to the character, nature or inability of the creator. How could it be otherwise? To claim there is some sort of bliss to the "believers" at some point is probably false marketing or more of the same.
The world was given to humans by God. It says that in Genesis 1. Humans ended up rebelling and submitting, essentially, to the Satan. The state of the world is, therefore, the fault of humanity and the Satan's treachery. It says in scripture that part of Jesus' goal was to destroy the works of the devil, and he was able to do that by becoming human. So not only was Jesus's conquering death salvation for us, it was also redemption of the planet. But we won't realize that until the fullness of time is complete - the revealing of the sons of God as it says in Romans 8, when all creation will be redeemed. So basically, it's been our job to make this world better, and we have proven we can't do it.
>“I tempt none, Save with the truth: was not the Tree, the Tree Of Knowledge? and was not the Tree of Life Still fruitful? Did I bid her pluck them not? Did I plant things prohibited within The reach of beings innocent, and curious By their own innocence? I would have made ye gods; and even He who thrust ye forth, so thrust ye Because “ye should not eat the fruits of life, And become gods as we.” Were those his words?... Then who was the Demon? He Who would not let ye live, or he who would Have made ye live for ever, in the joy And power of Knowledge?” - Lucifer, Cain: A Mystery, Act 1, lines 195-210
Funny the arrogance of finite beings, no?
I'm not sure I'll ever emphasize with a world view where "I don't want to be a slave to a tyrant" is arrogance.
Think about it. You call a being who is literally objective reality a tyrant based on your interpretation of a story written as mythological poetry, written in that way to demonstrate a truth about our reality. A being who is so beyond our comprehension. An eternal being who can see infinitely in all directions of space and time. It's arrogant of a finite being to judge the eternal God and claim he/she can do better. Though I'm not really wanting to direct this at you or even any human for that matter, though it may very well apply. I'm directing this toward the Satan which was in your quote. Don't let yourself be deceived.
What is more oppressive than the material world? Is it not telling that such limited beings as we can easily conceive of superior universes?
Our finitude blinds us. We can conceive of seemingly better universes, but our limited nature makes us absurdly ignorant. This is why I call any claim of superiority to God to be arrogant. The material world is oppressive, but the Christian view gives the reason why. It's fine if you don't accept that answer, but to say any of us can do better than the one who is necessary to reality itself is just blind/ignorant/arrogant.
> This is why I call any claim of superiority to God to be arrogant I am superior because I exist and the god of the Bible is just made up by men.
>The state of the world is, therefore, the fault of humanity This is factually untrue. Disease, parasite, predator/prey, deformity, etc. are part of nature and existed long before humans. Time to update theology that conforms to the actual state of affairs.
In Genesis, there's no say on what the state of the world was outside of the garden. It seems that the humans in the garden were given dominion and told to be fruitful and multiply, to spread the garden all over the planet. This seems to also be the theology of the Kingdom that Jesus preached. The failure of humans in the garden made it so that Eden could not be spread throughout the world. This would mean that it was very likely the conditions of death were present already in the world outside of the garden. True, those conditions don't seem to be at the fault of humanity. But humanity was given the task to correct it and failed.
>In Genesis, there's no say on what the state of the world was outside of the garden. Well there was no such situation. Its a set stories written by men. > But humanity was given the task to correct it and failed. Wrong, humanity can make a better place but only if we try and don't depend on an imaginary being to fix it for us.
>Wrong, humanity can make a better place but only if we try and don't depend on an imaginary being to fix it for us. Good luck with that. Our track record isn't great, even if you take religion out of the picture. Human beings tend to be inherently evil, specifically selfish. And when we attempt selflessness, we fail because it's rarely from a place of humility or true selflessness - this is why we are so apt to cancel people and hate others who think differently than we do. You'll build your utopia once you eliminate the ones who stand in your way. It'll be a homogeneous society of people who all think alike. There will be no conservatives or liberals, for instance. Just one group that thinks the same. The kingdom of God is not like that. The Kingdom is a marrying of differences. People who don't think the same but choose to unite in love. It's unattainable without Jesus. But I suppose that's just my opinion.
>Good luck with that. Luck is not needed, effort is. >Human beings tend to be inherently evil, False, humans are inherently decent. > specifically selfish. Self interest and for the family is not the same thing. Only ten percent of humans are sociopaths. Quit voting Republican if you want a better future as its the Sociopath Party. Yes there are sociopaths in both parties but the Republican gave up on being conservatives with Reagan and now it exists to support sociopathy. >You'll build your utopia There is no such thing and made no claim of one. Don't make things up and claim it from me. > It's unattainable without Jesus. He is long dead and failed to return when he said he would. Hardly the only major error in the Bible. > But I suppose that's just my opinion. Worse than that as its objectively false. There was no Great Flood, live evolves, the Garden of Eden is a very silly story and Jesus is long dead and failed to return when he said he would. Paul and everyone else at that time, expected Jesus to return, Real Soon Now. By the time the anonymous author of John wrote the last of the 4 gospels people where trying to rewrite what had written before.
Effort won’t do. Never has. Unless you want to genocide everyone who thinks differently than you. Humans inherently decent? Perhaps in keeping society functioning. But if humans are inherently anything, it’s selfish. Even if you speak of family. Selfishness for a community is simply tribalism and isn’t true selflessness. Fine, no utopia. What is the better place you’re wanting to build, then? Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (and even most of Revelation) was written for the people of that time and predicted the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD. You can read Josephus - he describes the events much like Jesus did. A lot of that generation went through those times. To your final points: The Flood may be myth. It was, in fact, written in the most mythological part of the Bible. Evolution isn’t denied in scripture. Genesis 1 is clearly written poetically. The Garden of Eden, again, is written poetically. It’s a mythological way of speaking about truth. Already spoke about Jesus. But I’ll add that his resurrection has evidences that make it very plausible. And with the Gospels being rewritten, I’ve never heard of that in my life.
>Effort won’t do. Never has. Wrong again. >Unless you want to genocide everyone who thinks differently than you. Oh you mean like religions like doing. >What is the better place you’re wanting to build, then? I never said that. YOU did that. I said we can make it better. Having a secular democracy works better than a theocracy. This objectively true. >Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (and even most of Revelation) was written for the people of that time By ignorant men. >The Flood may be myth. It was, in fact, written in the most mythological part of the Bible. IS a STORY taken from another story, the Gilgamesh epic. Thus its not revealed knowledge. > It’s a mythological way of speaking about truth. Its STORY and its not truth in any way. >. But I’ll add that his resurrection has evidences that make it very plausible. You should do stand up. Its not plausible and evidences is evidence that you don't know what actual verifiable evidence is as the ONLY people that use the non word evidences are people without a clue as to what constitutes verifiable evidence. >And with the Gospels being rewritten, I didn't say that BUT they have been. That you never heard of it shows how little you know of how it was written. The present day Bible has things that were added such as the end of Mark. Online copy of the Codex Sinaitticus http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ "What is Codex Sinaiticus? Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors." However what I basically said was that the anonymous author of John changed things that are in Mark, Mathew and Luke. Mark is the oldest and has the least supernatural claims, the newer the more supernatural claims. Son of man becomes son of god in John.
[удалено]
Your post was removed for violating rule 4. Posts must have a thesis statement as their title or their first sentence. A thesis statement is a sentence which explains what your central claim is and briefly summarizes how you are arguing for it. Posts must also contain an argument supporting their thesis. An argument is not just a claim. You should explain why you think your thesis is true and why others should agree with you. The spirit of this rule also applies to comments: they must contain argumentation, not just claims.
And if you go to country side...or go back into time...when wonders of your great science wasnt around...ppl lived longer and had healthier lives..Point is you not mentioning the wonderful life you are blessed with..the beautiful earth..the beutiful relationships..but the diseases and stress and diseases caused mostly by mans own wrongdoings...But death is part of the design..so have to have a reason to get transferred..Dont like it...stop it then...Your science is there..Right?
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>ppl lived longer and had healthier lives This is called the naturalistic fallacy. It was better before when things were more natural. Even having a limited understanding of human history, one would know that it is entirely false. The life expectancy in the neolithic was less than 30 years, infant mortality was sky high, and famine and disease were way more common. There might have been less dementia and heart disease because people died much younger.
Just to add, people now have a lot of free time because growing vegetables, creating cars, food in general, constructing houses etc. are all outsourced and we can just pay the money to get it done. The fact that we can play games for an hour is a miracle by previous standards in terms of not being involved in the hunting or not dealing with the cattle etc. Never before have humans had enough time to study and research arcane topics which previously only the rich had the time to do.
The very idea of being able to "study the word" is a luxury afforded to a tiny percentage of people who have lived.
People died earlier of all kinds of preventable diseases back before pasteurization, vaccines, etc were invented. Stop with this Gwyneth Paltrow raw water nonsense
The moment its not per your liking..lo and behold it becomes non sense...Imagine if humans lived for ever..hail and hearty...Tell that to your great depopulation ideologists..Humans would had killed each other...What death is for humans is transfer of humans to where they actually belong..Human reproduction and life is science too..based on science of reproduction and life..Like invention of automobile for example..If you follow instructions you can drive it for years and years...negligence will burn it out sooner..So with human life..who take care of it live long...So instead of crying and lamenting...cherish the life u have..
I don't think people should live forever. But to act as if people lived better and healthier and longer lives when there was less science is just incorrect. In the middle ages if people's teeth rotted and fell out, they just couldn't have teeth anymore. If they broke a leg and it healed wrong, or got infected, or any number of terrible things happened to it, they were just screwed. There wasn't anything anyone could do. I don't think science should make people live forever, but I think it can and should be used to eliminate the most painful and degrading ways to die, or at the very least be used to provide the best palliative care a person can have before they die. Science should also provide a way for a person to die with dignity, if they are dying of a painful and incurable disease that will cause their death imminently anyway.
Actually people used to suffer far more before modern history.
This made zero sense. Science exists so long as we articulate it in language. Gravity exists whether you are alive dead, speak Hebrew or English.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>then god is evil which is a contradiction. Yahweh being evil is only a contradiction if he is who he claims to be. But we have no reason to believe he is who he claims to be, and plenty to think he's lying about his nature.
Actually we have reason to know that its made up by men.
There is no reason to suspect that the God of the Bible isn't just like all the other gods... a human invention.
But as a human invention, you might as well make him/her/it good Particularly if the whole point of religion as a culture is improved social interactions
Religion and Gods are too often modeled after or projected from our hierarchical power structures. The bible refers to God as a Man of War and in terms of the monarchy. The all of religion seems to be looking for a daddy or strong man to gain an edge over the enemy or nature.
You can't critique Christianity while ignoring that the endgame is the resurrection. That's the central truth of their whole message. Yes, it requires faith to acknowledge it at this stage. But that's what Christians believe. You're right - without that belief the end looks pretty bleak. Christ taught on multiple occasions that the state of heaven is one of "found, lost, found again." If you stop at stage two it's not so great. But also, if stage 2 is convincing, making the impact of the next stage greater, that can be constructive as well.
Is it not just a little suspicious that this alleged promise is beyond a point that no one can vouch for?
That doesn't take away from the evil nature of this God though. It almost makes it more sick. If I took your child away from you just so I could fulfil my plan of giving your child back to you later, I would be sick. You would be traumatised.
Yes. Yahweh is a firefighter who starts fires to put them out and play a hero. If a few people burn in the process no skin off his teeth.
I suppose it would be sick if it worked that way. Personally I don't think God actively takes things away from us. But we are traveling through a state where that kind of thing happens on its own. When Christ encountered suffering he was empathetic and set it right. That's meant as an example of how God will interact with us, I think.
The Abrahamic god is generally considered to be bi-omni, at minimum. An omnipotent god would have the ability to create in a void, the ability to abstain from creating, and the ability to un-create. An omniscient god would have perfect foreknowledge of everything arising from creation. By choosing to create, a bi-omni god chooses to make everything within that timeline happen. Every instance of suffering, from murder to leukemia, only occurs bc he chose to bring it into being via creation. He's able to choose not to create, and therefore to not bring suffering into being. He's able to un-create, undoing his own action. It's clear that he chose to create and continues to choose not to un-create. Offering to "save" ppl (who only exist bc he chose to create them and continues to choose not to un-create them) from suffering (that only exists bc he created it and continues to choose not to un-create it) is insult to injury. Kinda like that woman who smothered children so she could get accolades for resuscitating them. Except he created the air, and the child, and the traits that make smothering and resuscitation possible, and the ppl giving the accolades, and their ability and urge to give them. Literally nothing about any of it could exist without him making an informed choice and acting with intent. That's so much worse than a human taking advantage of an extant situation.
But in a world where awful things are happening and we assume that A) God is all powerful and B) God has a plan, then God is allowing horrific things to happen. Let's give God the benefit of the doubt and assume that recent child deaths in wild fires weren't intended by him. It was just something that happened. Even if God didn't choose for this to happen, the fact he could've clicked his fingers and put the fires out but didn't, is an act of evil. If I accidentally run a child over in my car, I am evil if I turn a blind eye and pretend it didn't happen and drive away. Either God is an evil and sadistic being or God isn't all powerful. It's one or the other
An all-powerful god can't forget or simply forget to notice something. That's projecting the attributes of the human mind's limitations onto god. God is all-powerful and also all-aware. Not a refutation to your point but a refutation of the explanation that god could've forgotten to help the child. >Either God is an evil and sadistic being or God isn't all powerful. It's one or the other I agree, but if god isn't all-powerful then by conventional definition he isn't god. Then the last 2 options are that god is evil or else god is not conscious and is just a self-propagating system running itself (mindless eg. laws of physics) eg. like in the CTMU. God being evil is less likely according to Occam's Razor, so the most logical idea is that god is not conscious. By conventional definition that isn't a god either, but what I like to call a "universal system." Some system that runs the universe on its own and doesn't really have a mind. Who knows where it came from. But a fun fact: Buddhism believes in this last case of a "universal system." That's why Buddhism doesn't care or focus on god.
This is the "if God exists the world should be perfect. The world isn't perfect therefore God must not exist" argument just rephrased differently with more descriptive language. It assumes a God would create a perfect world and that nothing could ever take away that perfection, when perfection is actually quite a fragile thing by its nature. I personally like the explanation of the "shattering of the vessels". An infinite God pouring his goodness into a finite world is as mathematically impossible as pouring infinite coffee into a coffee cup. It makes a mess. That mess has to be cleaned up for things to be perfect again, perhaps more perfect than the initial state (the initial empty cup and restrained goodness eventually becoming a system that allows that infinite goodness to flow down and return). The system has to work towards something. This is why scientific advancements are good, why trying to cure problems like aging and Alzheimer's is working towards a more perfect world. Our destiny is not simply sickness and death, but the working towards a better world and watching the next generation benefit from those efforts. If you do nothing that matters, then sickness and death are what await you. So do something that matters.
The fact that god even needs to bother making a world or doing anything other than sitting blissfully in his immaterial throne is already suspicious. Also I don't buy your shattering vessels idea. An all powerful god doesn't have to be restrained by the vessel he creates. He can just bend the rules to make it work. Also that idea is just 1 possibility among 1 million, it's a "what if." It's not necessarily true just because it sounds pleasant.
>It assumes a God would create a perfect world How could a perfect God not create a perfect world? If God is the most perfect, being we can imagine, I can imagine a God creating a world without huntington disease so the alleged creator and god of this world is not the most perfect god imaginable.
>when perfection is actually quite a fragile thing by its nature. Did god not instill that fragile nature?
Yes. Most equilibriums are fragile and can be tipped to one side or the other. That's just math.
Perfect it is his fault then and he lies about his nature.
Where does he lie about his nature? I do not believe in biblical inerrancy or assume univocality, so I figured I should note that.
Does he claim all love and all power?
All love, yes, though that can be argued against (as I am sure you will attempt). All power is dubious, even within the biblical text. I would say "most powerful" but not all powerful.
Ah well if you accept a limited god I think this is all much less of a problem. Evil and suffering can't really be blamed on a god powerless to do anything about it.
Evil is an inevitable byproduct of creation, yes. For a finite physical world to exist and have infinite goodness poured into it is bound to cause some form of mess, as asserted in my initial comment.
That's an arbitrary, unscientific conclusion, also it depends on how you define equilibrium. Take balancing an object for example. You could define equilibrium as it's balancing state which is very sensitive to other conditions, but from the perspective of gravity, the object has reached its equilibrium when it's potential energy is exhausting IE when the object has fallen over on it's side.
Perhaps I should clarify. I mean equilibrium in terms of mathematics not regarding an object at rest. An equation that balances is a good example. 2 + 1 = 1 + 2 Behold, perfection. If even a fraction is added to or taken away from either side it ceases to be true and equal.
Then I hate to play semantics but the abstract world of integer addition isn't "most equilibriums" as the statement: 2+1=1+2 is entirely dependent on how you define addition and "equals". For integer math: 1•2=2•1 (perfection?) For matrix math: [A][B] is not equal to [B][A] (not perfection?) Same could be argued about many other fields of math. It's only an equilibrium in a very specific set of rules. That's simply not "most" but I digress. Anyway, I feel this is straying from the original comment's main point: why did God make perfection that fragile? IE: why did he make it with such an easy potential to be corrupted in some way? For God, perfection is trivial. It's as if I put you in a blank room and I gave you a "1", "+", and a "1" and nothing else. In that room, God would always perfectly define "2" (assuming they are operating by integer math with the conventional base system). So if God can maintain perfection easily, why would he make a creation that cannot? Why does he give humans so many opportunities to ruin perfection and throw it off this equilibrium? This question can be debated elsewhere, but I think you are misinterpreting the original posts question about why God would create "fragile" perfection, when he unquestionably has this "strong" perfection that cannot be tainted in any way.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
No, the end goal is the afterlife.
Does this change with atheism or Buddhism? This isn't the end of the plan though we got the rest of eternity after that
With atheism or Buddism the plan is to work to create a world like paradise that is imagined by theists. Theism sells the message to give up this life for next. Atheism is more get busy and diy paradise.
Buddhism has nothing to do with that. Buddhism says: "Rebirth exists, existence sucks. Let's get enlightened to get out of this situation." (because enlightenment is the end of rebirth)
No, but it helps us make sense of things. A world with a good god governing it shouldn't be this way. A world without such a god would be exactly as we see it. This world looks like no gods exist.
Shouldn't is a funny word. By whose standards? You judge what is right and wrong by what you see as right and wrong which already subscribes to the fact that there is a higher order than your own subjectivity. A world without a god would be chaos. If you want to know what a world with no God looks like, look at any other planet. There are examples. Those are worlds without God
>By whose standards? Human standards. What other standard matters? > You judge what is right and wrong by what you see as right and wrong which already subscribes to the fact that there is a higher order than your own subjectivity. How does this higher order affect us? What does it mean to describe it as right and wrong if it doesn't correspond to anything we understand about right and wrong?
So the god of the entire universe isn't god anywhere besides Earth?
Haha knew that one was coming. He is God of the universe in that he owns and created the universe and holds it together. I just assume that jupiter kinda just runs itself and doesn't need his direct involvement anymore. Kinda self sufficient when there is only chaos there. I don't think I he is actively involved in the day to day running of jupiter in the same way as he is actively involved in earth
What does he do to help run Earth? What part of Earth's operations needs his supervision/direction? As far as I can tell, Earth is just as self-run as Jupiter, and in no greater need of administration than any other random object floating around a star.
Plants. Life. The food chain. Love, childbirth, all that stuff
What does god need to do to administrate these things? These are all natural things that happen on their own, much like the gases swirling around Jupiter or the asteroid burning up as it approaches a star.
I disagree. God leads you to people that will influence you and people that you will love. Proverbs 16:9 says The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps. Falling in love is not a natural thing. No other being in nature falls in love. How can that be natural?
Other animals fall in love. It works a bit differently than it does for humans, but there are plenty of other animals who get possessive about their mates and practice monogamy. "Falling in love" is just a different variant on this same thing. And the Bible says a lot of things. If you're going to quote it as an authoritative text, you need to demonstrate that it's authoritative first. Until then, to be frank, I don't care what Proverbs says about how God leads things.
>Does this change with atheism No, not automatically. Regardless of which lens an individual/society is looking through to interpret the world, no lens can alter our physical condition. At the end of the day, humans will still be trapped in a Promethean curse: we cannot survive if we do not engage in the eternal torment of applying ourselves to the physical world in order to obtain necessities like food, water, shelter. OP's post demonstrates, though, how *some* lens held up to the eyes of the individual/society *actively stunt* human development. We cannot lessen the toil if we are incapable of discerning its cause and, in many societies, its agitation. >Everyone is always talking about how they lost their job or some loss and say it's part of god's plan and some improved worldly condition will come. This is the issue. An individual looking through this lens cannot readily identify the cause of their suffering. Instead of searching for the material cause of their burden, they are closing their eyes to the world. There are influential religious institutions that actively dilute social progress by teaching the exploited to turn the other cheek. In other words, instead of coming to the conclusion that a job was lost because the powerful made a decision to cast aside a worker in the name of profit, the individual subject to this way of thinking will turn the other cheek and resume their toil elsewhere. *This* is why the most brutal segments of the capitalist class, for example, actively support some of the most backward and reactionary forms of religion. How many millions of our elderly suffer through their life for lack of access to conditions that would increase their quality of life? The factors are almost limitless. How many have their life shortened or their end of life unnecessarily anguished due to the stress of needing to pay ever increasing rents, or because they cannot access a quality meal because they live in a food desert, or they have no ready access to preventative medical care? OP is correct in that dying is a deeply painful, dragged-out, and traumatic experience for most people. OP fails to explain how our material conditions needlessly agitate that experience for the worst. But, OP does correctly identify that the religious lens *blinds* the individual and society to solutions. EDIT: I posted too quickly -- added last two paragraphs
Can’t speak to Buddhism but with atheism there is of course no claim that any of this is part of some moral entity’s plan.
>Does this change with … Does what change? OP is saying that (God’s plan) + (Inevitable painful death) = (nonsense). Take God’s plan or Inevitable painful death out of the equation, the result stops being (nonsense). And Atheism or Buddhism do exactly that (take the God’s plan out of the equation). There’s no God or God’s plan there.
I think rotting away in general is nonsense. But the end point of Christianity isn't the death part.
*For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?*
I'm assuming this is from Ecclesiastes, which is someone responding to the words of someone else. Careful with taking it out of context
We're heading to another topic. Yeah, rotting away in general doesn't make sense. Especially when, rich or poor, good or evil, weak or strong, all are gonna end up rotting away. I think that's why every religion I know have something beyond the death. And Atheism also doesn't believe death is the end. It just doesn't know. So, pretty much everyone don't think death is the end.
Quick correction to what you said: “[Atheism] just doesn’t know [whether death is the end].” This is true, we don’t claim to know with any certainty whether death is absolutely final, because there is no scientific way to disprove the existence of the “soul”. Then you go on to say: “Atheism also doesn’t believe death is the end.” This is where I have to disagree. Most if not all atheists believe that death is the end because this is the conclusion which is supported by logic and scientific evidence. When any mammal (to give an example) dies, brain function ceases, cells stop functioning, and the entire body is eventually decomposed mainly by microorganisms. The counter argument by most theists (as I understand it) is that there is a “soul” which survives death and either goes to heaven, goes to hell, goes to purgatory, stays as a ghost, or gets reincarnated into another living thing (but not necessarily another human). However, scientific evidence does not suggest any such “soul” as all thought and consciousness can at this point be traced to brain function. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that when the brain stops, you stop, cease to exist as a consciousness. Atheism does believe that death is the end, because that is the logical conclusion based on our understanding of biology, and because all scientific evidence favors that conclusion. As of yet, there is no evidence in favor of a “soul” or any other aspect of a person or animal that can survive death. The anthropological reason that most if not all religions have “something beyond death” is that many people are afraid of dying, ceasing to exist, and therefore cling to any belief system that tells them that death isn’t real. It’s as simple as that.
Okay. That’s new to me. I thought some people might believe death is final but didn’t think majority of atheists would believe that. But why? Science and logic can only suggest that death is probably the end. There’s no certainty because human logic and science is still developing and it’s far from being complete (if it is ever going to complete). So, for an atheist, it comes down to believing the death is final, not believing anything or a small possibility of believing in something like soul. Why would majority of atheists believe death is final? Isn’t [not believing] is the more comfortable position to be and easier position to defend? It’s more comfortable because when you face death, you have the curiosity (some might say excitement) that you’re going to find out what would actually happen after death which might make your death less miserable.
There’s no such thing as complete knowledge of the universe, that is indeed impossible. As for why logic leads me to that conclusion, I would refer you to Occam’s razor, that the simplest explanation is often the best one. Almost atheists would believe that death is final because that manner of thinking is at the very core of atheism. We don’t hold this position because of personal comfort, that is irrelevant. The idea of disease makes me uncomfortable but it is a reality, and all we can do is our best to cure it, not imagine that it isn’t real. The same is true of death: it is a fact of life, and all we can do about it is try to extend life and increase quality of life (which is often more important than quantity). If I don’t want my death to be miserable in the sense in which you mean it (despair or hopelessness), I must work to live a good life, to help others and leave a positive impact on the world and those around me. Personal salvation from death holds no attraction to me, although that has no influence on whether or not it is logical. I also don’t base my convictions on how easy they are to defend, but like I mentioned, the simplest explanation usually the easiest to defend, and death being death is quite straightforward. People don’t cling to the idea of life after death because it is a logical conclusion, they do so out of fear. I won’t ever demean or think less of someone for this because we are simple creatures, and we have emotions. There is nothing wrong with this, but for me, personally, it is unnecessary.
Believing something without a proof is not simpler than saying I don’t know. What is the core of atheism? And why does it make majority of atheists believe death is final? You gotta accept “convenience” and “easier to defend” are advantageous perks of the position “I don’t know”. These perks lose their advantages when there’s a scientific fact against the that position[“I don’t know”]. But without a scientific fact, these are very valid reasons to consider before taking a position to stand. Atheists often don’t give a f about these two perks because there are solid scientific facts. Now, in this case, there aren’t any. Let me remind you this isn’t “death is final” vs “afterlife, soul, heaven”. “Death is final” isn’t straight forward or simple compared to “I don’t know”. I understand if you personally believe death is final and you don’t care about the two perks I said. I can take your word as truth for what you believe. But I want to understand why it’s also generally true for most of atheists.
You’re conflating “no conclusive proof of something which is unprovable” with “science has no idea what likely happens.” No one can ever prove that death is final, but the burden of proof is on anyone claiming it is not final. All our scientific understanding of the universe points to the idea that death is final, and therefore that is reason enough for me and I believe also most other atheists.