God’s Rules, Requirements and Covenants

[Rhea]

Spinning of a new topic from a different thread. Learner, a Christian, was making excuses for hell by opining that Yahweh and Jesus have to punish people to keep their promises. Here is the spark that generates this discussion:

Hell is a deterent against evil wickedness etc.,& etc.. POV. Only God/ Jesus can take that position as being ultimately fair. to Judge. It takes ultimately more than a mere mortal to do what is promised, by the laws laid out and covenants agreed upon, without hesitancy (even with sorrow in heart) not to rewrite the laws, or take back His WORD...doing turnarounds( like politicians) with what was established. It takes ultimately more than a mere mortal to fulfill and keep to the script, so to speak.

This is a whole ‘nother thread and is intensely interesting. About “rules” your god “has” to follow that result in some people being rewarded with “new bodies” that “don’t sin” while other people “have to” keep the sinful bodies and be tortured in them. I shall start a different thread for this. It’s a weird, twisty, (very human) and pretty disturbing excuse for torture.

Without conflicting with any covenants - He sent a saviour should we fall short (of the laws for example),sins are forgivable. Sinners get forgiven - Reprobates (Gods enemies) don't repent.

So your heaven includes the existence of something bad happening to “reprobates”. AS I posited above.

So what is the deal here? A bully says, “if you don’t do what I say, I’m going to make you pay!” And the Christians think that never breaking that promise is the honorable thing to do?

Bearing in mind that the bully is also known to say, according to various sources, “if you don’t worship me, I’m going to make you pay!” Which is punishment for an even more uncivilized expectation.

Bearing further in mind that doing things like murder and rape are more forgivable!! than failing to worship to this god. And that “new bodies” are available to make some people not choose bad any more, but other people will not get the new body and will continue to sin and be smacked for it.

But look how lovingly Learner coos that he “keeps his promise.”

I find that to be pretty disturbing. Thoughts? Comments? Disussions?

Why does the god make threats that are called “promises”
Wh made these “rules” that he “has to” follow?
Why is that considered “loving”?

Key vocabulary that tries to justify eternal punishment in hell:

• Laws Laid out
• Covenants Agreed Upon
• Rewrite Laws
• Take back his word
• Keep to the script
• Turnarounds like politicians

 

[Jarhyn]

Why would any good God promise to do evil things in the first place? All that does is move the pawn meaninglessly around as to where the evil act by a supposedly all-knowing all-good entity actually happened.

It still doesn't justify hell, it just means God fucked up even more deeply than if he made hell "just cuz"

 

[Keith&Co.]

So what is the deal here? A bully says, “if you don’t do what I say, I’m going to make you pay!”

No, no. That's extortion. And when they 'make you pay,' they say, 'you were warned.'

The bully says 'stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself!' while slapping your own hand against your face. And in the principal's office, all yhe bully's homies swear 'he did that to himself.'

At thd end of Noah's Flood, which was sent to punish Man for being wicked, God takes a few hits off of the sacrificial smoke and realizes Man is just wicked by nature. He was created with wickedidity.
But the deal is if we don't appeal to the guy that gave us the wicked to forgive us our wicked ways, we'll be punished in Hell for wicked ways (wicked thought, wicked word, wicked deed). And all God's Christain homies will say the damned 'did that to themselves.'





....AND, 'you were warned.'

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Obviously, hell does not deter the sort of people who need that sort of deterance.


Ezekiel 36:26-8
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will
give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye
shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Isaiah 59:20-21
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from
transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit
that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not
depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the
mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

See also:
Ezekiel 36:26-8, Isaiah 59:20-21, Jeremiah 24:6-7,
Jeremiah 31:33-34, Ezekiel 11:19, 1 Samuel 10:9,
2 Corinthians 1:21-22

God could achieve much better results by doing what God supposedly tells us he could do in the Bible. This also dooms all sorts of claims God wants us to have free will. With the "Great Commission" of the New Testament, to bring Christianity to the whole world,God could have done this and all would be happiness, joy and very little moral evil.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why would any good God promise to do evil things in the first place?

Where does God promise to do evil?
Nothing God does is evil if the end justifies the means.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why would any good God promise to do evil things in the first place?

Where does God promise to do evil?
Nothing God does is evil if the end justifies the means.

How does sending people to hell "justify the means"? If trying to frighten people with threats of hell for misdeeds or misthoughts doesn't deter them, how would actually sending people there and no one actually knowing that he actually did be more of a deterrent?

For example, if it is assumed that there actually a hell, would whether or not Ravi Zacharias was there make any difference to people's behavior since they could never know?

 

[Jarhyn]

Why would any good God promise to do evil things in the first place?

Where does God promise to do evil?
Nothing God does is evil if the end justifies the means.

How does sending people to hell "justify the means"? If trying to frighten people with threats of hell for misdeeds or misthoughts doesn't deter them, how would actually sending people there and no one actually knowing that he actually did be more of a deterrent?

For example, if it is assumed that there actually a hell, would whether or not Ravi Zacharias was there make any difference to people's behavior since they could never know?

It isn't the means it is literally the end. It is not even potentially a means, it is the ends with respect to those people. God created them, knowing they would be evil, then tortures them forever.

 

[DBT]

Why would any good God promise to do evil things in the first place?

Where does God promise to do evil?
Nothing God does is evil if the end justifies the means.

Verses that tell us that God creates evil, that if there is evil, 'hath not the Lord your God Created it?'

 

[Jarhyn]

As I pointed out, all this does is make god an idiot on top of being evil. He is promising ahead of time to be awful and making childishly naive and evil... And this is supposedly the Mary Sue of the ages?

At any rate, all this does is tell me more "the bible cannot be your guide; at best it has some small clues that may not be worth the detour."

 

[Lion IRC]

Why would any good God promise to do evil things in the first place?

Where does God promise to do evil?
Nothing God does is evil if the end justifies the means.

Verses that tell us that God creates evil, that if there is evil, 'hath not the Lord your God Created it?'

No. They don't tell us that.
Evil exists solely as the ontological opposite of good.
Its an adjective not a noun.

 

[Jarhyn]

Verses that tell us that God creates evil, that if there is evil, 'hath not the Lord your God Created it?'

No. They don't tell us that.
Evil exists solely as the ontological opposite of good.
Its an adjective not a noun.

No. It doesn't. Evil is not an ontological opposite of good, and this is not a shared perspective you will get. At best good acts can be evil-agnostoc and evil acts can be good-agnostic, but you can have acts that have positive values of both good and evil. They don't cancel though. In fact that's a clear statement of your book! That you can't erase evil with good.

I could, after all, kill a thousand children, and save a thousand children's lives, and I've done both 1000 good and 1000 evil. They don't cancel, and the thousand I've killed does not in any way invalidate the goodness of the thousand saved.

Good is not evil nor it's absence evil is not good nor it's absence. Get out with that garbage.