"God" is a tyrant.

[Brynmr]

What some of us are trying to explain is that there is no coercion. Ask yourself, "What if God does not coerce?" How would you respond?

Anyone who accepts the Christian premise of God and damnation in order to denigrate Christianity is disingenuous, dishonest, cowardly and phony.

And, yet, you cannot dispute my premise, without resorting to logical fallacies, and personal attacks.

You're not worth talking to because you're dishonest and a phony. You can't even answer a straight forward simple question.

 

[Czernobog]

What some of us are trying to explain is that there is no coercion. Ask yourself, "What if God does not coerce?" How would you respond?

Anyone who accepts the Christian premise of God and damnation in order to denigrate Christianity is disingenuous, dishonest, cowardly and phony.

And, yet, you cannot dispute my premise, without resorting to logical fallacies, and personal attacks.

You're not worth talking to because you're dishonest and a phony. You can't even answer a straight forward simple question.

Sure I can. You are just incapable of asking a straightforward simple question that is relevant to the topic.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not a Christian. I don't accept the idea of a creator god or a Christian Hell so I don't feel coerced or forced in the least. This guy is either lying about being an atheist or his OP is just an excuse to crap on Christianity.

And, your crude characterization aside, you're right. My premise is a challenge to Christianity. I'm sorry that it offends you so much that someone would challenge theists to defend their beliefs. If the idea that theists should actually defend the rationality of their beliefs offends you so much, then you have an alternative available to you. Just s\hut the fuck up, and don't participate.

Have a nice day.

 

[Meriweather]

Let's stick with reality, shall we? Would you agree that the definition of coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats?

I am trying to bring reality back into the perspective that some have of God as tyrant. That is not reality. How has God threatened you? How has He forced you?

 

[Czernobog]

Let's stick with reality, shall we? Would you agree that the definition of coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats?

I am trying to bring reality back into the perspective that some have of God as tyrant. That is not reality. How has God threatened you? How has He forced you?

I'm sorry. Answering a question with a question is just deflection. It was a simple question; do you, or do you not agree with the definition I presented of coercion?

 

[Meriweather]

I'm sorry. I thought it was a simple question, do you, or do you not agree with the definition I presented of coercion?

I understand your perspective. I don't think it is correct. For example, if someone posts a sign, "Danger, Quicksand," is that person a tyrant? After all, he is threatening you with quicksand if you proceed. Likewise if someone tells a teen, "Wear a coat or you will be cold," and the teen chooses not to wear a coat and is cold, does that make the person who advised wearing a coat a tyrant?

Likewise if God advises us to love Him and our fellowman, and be good lest we fall into a hellish existence, and we choose hate and evil and fall into that hellish existence, is it God who is the tyrant?

 

[Czernobog]

I'm sorry. I thought it was a simple question, do you, or do you not agree with the definition I presented of coercion?

I understand your perspective. I don't think it is correct. For example, if someone posts a sign, "Danger, Quicksand," is that person a tyrant? After all, he is threatening you with quicksand if you proceed. Likewise if someone tells a teen, "Wear a coat or you will be cold," and the teen chooses not to wear a coat and is cold, does that make the person who advised wearing a coat a tyrant?

Likewise if God advises us to love Him and our fellowman, and be good lest we fall into a hellish existence, and we choose hate and evil and fall into that hellish existence, is it God who is the tyrant?

So, God didn't create Hell? God didn't set the rules? God didn't put in place the punishment? Like the quick sand in your first example, and the cold in your second, these are conditions that are beyond his control, and are not of his making? They had nothing to do with him, and he just wants to warn us of their existence? That is what you are telling me? REALLY??????

 

[peach174]

God does not force or coerce anyone.
Mankind does that, but not God.
We each have free will to choose in belief of him or not.

You do understand the nature of coercion, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I most certainly do !
Do you?

 

[Czernobog]

God does not force or coerce anyone.
Mankind does that, but not God.
We each have free will to choose in belief of him or not.

You do understand the nature of coercion, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I most certainly do !
Do you?

Well, considering I posted the definition, I'd say yes.

 

[peach174]

God does not force or coerce anyone.
Mankind does that, but not God.
We each have free will to choose in belief of him or not.

You do understand the nature of coercion, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I most certainly do !
Do you?

Well, considering I posted the definition, I'd say yes.

No you aren't, you have a very biased view based on the words you use.
Trigger words influence people's view and can twist things into how they think.

 

[Meriweather]

So, God didn't create Hell? God didn't set the rules? God didn't put in place the punishment? Like the quick sand in your first example, and the cold in your second, these are conditions that are beyond his control, and are not of his making? They had nothing to do with him, and he just wants to warn us of their existence? That is what you are telling me? REALLY??????

Really. When we create anything isn't there a topside and an underside? We grow a flower, and we have both the flower and the filthy roots. A tomato plant cannot thrive without leaves, yet the tomatoes are healthy for us while the leaves are poison. In the Bible God does take responsibility for both goodness/light and darkness/evil. Knowing there are situations where we humans will thrive and situations where we will not, why wouldn't God give us a heads up?

When a child burns himself on the stove, are the parents evil tyrants for bringing a stove into the home?

Are you in favor of both God and parents wrapping their children in cotton batting and placing them on a shelf where nothing can ever harm them? What kind of existence is that? Seems to me that type of existence would better described as tyrannical.

 

[Czernobog]

God does not force or coerce anyone.
Mankind does that, but not God.
We each have free will to choose in belief of him or not.

You do understand the nature of coercion, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I most certainly do !
Do you?

Well, considering I posted the definition, I'd say yes.

No you aren't, you have a very biased view based on the words you use.
Trigger words influence people's view and can twist things into how they think.

*sigh* Okay. You can go now, too. Well, Meriweather. I guess it's up to youy. You seem to be the only one who has been up to the challenge without having to resort to either logical fallacies, or turning this into personal attacks on my character (ad hominem). Have none of you people ever even learned the most basic rules of logical, rational debate?

Here's a hint for you: It doesn't matter how cvile, disgusting, or morally, or ethical reprehensible I am. *I could be a child rapist, cannibal who hunts school yards for victims, and it wouldn't matter. Either my argument is rational, or it is not. If it is not, then you should be able to defend, and dismantle it, rationally, and logically, without having to resort to attacking me, and my character. If you cannot do that, then simply admit as much, and be on your way.

 

[Czernobog]

So, God didn't create Hell? God didn't set the rules? God didn't put in place the punishment? Like the quick sand in your first example, and the cold in your second, these are conditions that are beyond his control, and are not of his making? They had nothing to do with him, and he just wants to warn us of their existence? That is what you are telling me? REALLY??????

Really. When we create anything isn't there a topside and an underside? We grow a flower, and we have both the flower and the filthy roots. A tomato plant cannot thrive without leaves, yet the tomatoes are healthy for us while the leaves are poison. In the Bible God does take responsibility for both goodness/light and darkness/evil. Knowing there are situations where we humans will thrive and situations where we will not, why wouldn't God give us a heads up?

When a child burns himself on the stove, are the parents evil tyrants for bringing a stove into the home?

Are you in favor of both God and parents wrapping their children in cotton batting and placing them on a shelf where nothing can ever harm them? What kind of existence is that? Seems to me that type of existence would better described as tyrannical.

So, to. Be. Clear. You are saying that the Omnipotent, omniscient God of all creation, had no hand in creating Hell, and has no part in condemning souls to Hell. That is really your position? You fully acknowledge that such place exists, and that non-believing souls are, in fact, condemned to spend eternity there, but God did not create that rule, or set in motion that system. That is your position. No spin, no equivocation. And you should know that as long as you keep responding with equivocal answers that cannot be tied to an actual acknowledgement of the question I am actually asking, I will keep asking the same question, until you answer the question I am actually asking. So, you can keep pivoting to non-answers, for as long as you like; I will just keep restating the question over, and over, and over until you answer it.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

the above is a forgery for the very purpose to coerce.

the 4th century christian bible in nothing but coercion and tyranny ... nothing to do with the religion of the 1st century or the Almighty.

If I were to comment, "No one comes into my house except through the door," would that be a statement of coercion or a statement of fact? My house has many rooms, yet it is one house. And no one gets to the bedrooms except by the stairs. Jesus taught that he and the Father are one.

The one thing I find truly hard to understand is the perspective of God as tyrant. What has God done to you personally that has caused you to judge Him a tyrant?

.

The one thing I find truly hard to understand is the perspective of God as tyrant. What has God done to you personally that has caused you to judge Him a tyrant?

nothing at all, I know perfectly well only the qualified will be judged on their own merit - it is your dependence on a forged 10,000 page document disguised as a religion that is the impediment against the fruition required for all of humanity to suceed before any one individual will be admitted to the Everlasting.

the history of your book from the 4th century to the present speaks for itself about tyranny and oppression ... and what you really worship.

If I were to comment, "No one comes into my house except through the door," ...

the 10000 pg document is itself the impediment, change it as was done in the 4th century or become extinct - just do not expect everyone to follow you to your grave,.

 

[ding]

Proposed: The Christian God is a tyrant determined to force everyone on the planet to convert to Christianity, and worship as a Christian, and the illusion of "Free Will" is a pretence that he created to convince you that observance was your own idea.

Otherwise, why fill the Bible with references of the eternal torture, and suffering that would befall non-believers after judgement, when one dies. Now, the first question that is going to be asked is going to be an attempt at a distraction: "Why should I care what the Bible says, since I'm an Atheist?" However, it doesn't matter what my theological position is, does it? "The truth is the truth," right? So, if the Bible is the Truth, then the things that are in the Bible are "the Truth" whether I believe them, or not. Which, brings us right back around to my question. If God is not a tyrant, and does not demand worship from everyone, then why threaten anyone who does not believe? If God does not care one way, or the other, if someone chooses to believe, or not, why bother with all of the threats?

Dear Czernobog
Try substituting NATURE or LIFE for "God."
is NATURE a tyrant for its preexistent laws and ways of how the world works?
Is LIFE a tyrant for how we are born, go through stages of growth learning and development, before we die?

now, isn't our relationship with NATURE or LIFE
up to us to decide if we are going to work with it or try to fight against it.

isn't part of the learning curve making peace and learning to work with
laws of the universe, nature and life. And isn't that up to human conscience to deal with?

Except the Bible doesn't talk about living this life in harmony with God. It, repeatedly, talks about the eternal gnashing of teeth, torture, suffering, and damnation, after death that comes to those who do not join in the cult of Jesus worshipers.

You want to make it sound as if Christianity is no different than Zen Buddhism, except we both know that's not true.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And yet the Jews saw God as a loving and caring God. Is it possible that you don't understand what you read? How can they be wrong and you be right when they are the one's who were entrusted with bringing the Word of God to man. Do you believe that you know more than them?

Dear ding
If you can imagine for one second if your brain saw the world as a self-existing force of its own, and did not see things as personfied but neutral and impersonal. Wouldn't you question what the heck is it with all these people trying to make something out of nothing?

I don't see how it is fair to JUDGE anyone for questioning and downright rejecting what makes NO SENSE to the secular mind.

Would you judge someone who is color blind for questioning or rejecting what is this crap everyone is calling COLOR when their eyes/brains just can't see any such range. What if COLOR was pushed in your face and you were judged and rejected, condemned because you didn't see or believe there was any such thing, and thought people were making it up.

Well, some minds AREN'T DESIGNED to see things the same way. We need scientists' brains to work differently from artists, in order to focus objectively and not be distracted by "relative interpretations" that the artistic mind may be better suited for.

If we are to believe that God is in charge of designing things for a reason, don't you think the minds of secular gentiles are supposed to think in neutral terms and not see things the same way?

How are we going to blame people for how their brains are designed, and then give credit and have faith in God being in absolute control where those plans and designs are supreme and "perfect."

If so, then nontheists are designed to operate exactly as they do, and we are supposed to learn to work with what we are given.

Maybe I see things differently because I'm like "bilingual" -- I still see things and prefer to say things like a secular/nontheist in regular terms, but I also see and understand what Christians and Deists see who personify God and Christ, and I have learned THAT language as well. So I can toggle between both worlds, and at least appreciate how people experience and express things. They don't necessarily understand how the other operates, but if we can translate back and forth, at least we can share and communicate.

We certainly don't need to be judging each other for how we see and say things.

If that's how people's minds and lives are designed, I'm certainly not one to argue with God!

Think about this ding and tell me how you resolve this in your own words. My way is different, but I'd like to know how you see it.

Thanks! Appreciate you, and trust you are here and designed to make great contributions to reaching an understanding in these very areas. So your perspective and insights are very important, I hope you know that.

If it were as you say it is is, sure, but I don't believe it is that way. I don't question the faith of other people to prove their faith wrong and I certainly don't misstate the beliefs of other faiths. He is on a mission. He is a militant atheist and he is doing what militant atheists do. He attacks religion for the express purpose of subordinating religion. He condemns respect for people who believe in God and my only concern is stopping him as I would stop any other bully who uses bully behavior.

 

[ding]

Proposed: The Christian God is a tyrant determined to force everyone on the planet to convert to Christianity, and worship as a Christian, and the illusion of "Free Will" is a pretence that he created to convince you that observance was your own idea.

Otherwise, why fill the Bible with references of the eternal torture, and suffering that would befall non-believers after judgement, when one dies. Now, the first question that is going to be asked is going to be an attempt at a distraction: "Why should I care what the Bible says, since I'm an Atheist?" However, it doesn't matter what my theological position is, does it? "The truth is the truth," right? So, if the Bible is the Truth, then the things that are in the Bible are "the Truth" whether I believe them, or not. Which, brings us right back around to my question. If God is not a tyrant, and does not demand worship from everyone, then why threaten anyone who does not believe? If God does not care one way, or the other, if someone chooses to believe, or not, why bother with all of the threats?

Dear Czernobog
Try substituting NATURE or LIFE for "God."
is NATURE a tyrant for its preexistent laws and ways of how the world works?
Is LIFE a tyrant for how we are born, go through stages of growth learning and development, before we die?

now, isn't our relationship with NATURE or LIFE
up to us to decide if we are going to work with it or try to fight against it.

isn't part of the learning curve making peace and learning to work with
laws of the universe, nature and life. And isn't that up to human conscience to deal with?

Except the Bible doesn't talk about living this life in harmony with God. It, repeatedly, talks about the eternal gnashing of teeth, torture, suffering, and damnation, after death that comes to those who do not join in the cult of Jesus worshipers.

You want to make it sound as if Christianity is no different than Zen Buddhism, except we both know that's not true.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think you are exaggerating "according to the consensus opinion of modern Bible scholars, the word "hell" did not appear a single time, not even once, in the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament (OT). And the word "hell" is very hard to find in the New Testament (NT) as well. You can easily confirm this fact yourself, by using an online Bible search tool to scan various Bible translations for the word "hell."

"The word "hell" does not appear in the Bible because:

(1) The Hebrew word Sheol clearly means "the grave," not "hell." Everyone went to Sheol when they died, not just the wicked. Sheol was not a place of suffering, because in Job 14:13, a much-beset Job asked to go to Sheol to escape suffering! He clearly meant that if he died, his suffering would end in the grave. Sheol was not a place where God was absent, because King David said in Psalm 139:8 that when he made his bed in Sheol (i.e., when he died and was laid in his grave), God would still be with him. And Sheol was not an eternal inescapable prison, because in Psalm 49:15 the Sons of Korah said that God would redeem them from Sheol, by which they meant that they would be resurrected from the grave to new life. Furthermore, the prophet Ezekiel and the apostle Paul agreed that all Israel would be saved, and yet in Genesis 37:35, Israel himself said that he would be reunited with his son Joseph in Sheol. How can all Israel be saved if Israel himself is in "hell"? In each case Sheol clearly means "the grave" or "the abode of all the dead, good and bad" and cannot be interpreted as "hell" unless "hell" is heaven!

(2) The Greek word Hades also clearly means "the grave" not "hell." Everyone went to Hades when they died, not just the wicked. Hades contained heavenly regions like the Elysian Fields and the Blessed Isles. The Greek hell was Tartarus, which is discussed below, in section 4.

(3) The place name Gehenna does not mean "hell" because Gehenna is a valley in Israel also known in Hebrew as Gehinnom, or the Valley of Hinnom. Today Gehenna is a lovely park and tourist attraction. Wonderful archeological discoveries have been made there, such as the healing pool of Siloam and the oldest Bible verses ever discovered, inscribed on small silver amulets. Those verses are the benediction "The LORD bless thee and keep thee; the LORD make his countenance to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee." Those are wonderfully comforting words to have been discovered in "hell," don't you think?

(4) The Greek hell was Tartarus. This is the only word in the Bible that actually means "hell" in either Greek or Hebrew. But the word Tartarus appears only one time in the entire Bible, in 2 Peter 2:4. And that verse is about fallen angels awaiting judgment, so its hell is not eternal and is not for human beings. The only verse in the Bible that contains a word that actually means "hell" seems to be about a place where Satan and other fallen angels await judgement."

How many times is hell mentioned in the Bible?

Dear ding
The "lake of fire" is where evil is burned away.

In real life terms:
* anyone who's been through WAR has seen hell.
* Anyone who's wanted to kill themselves to escape a drug addiction has been there and hopefully come back.
* anyone who's lost a loved one to murder, only to be railroaded through a cruel criminal justice system, and tormented every time the convict comes up for parole and is pictured all over the news... sorry.... but you cannot imagine the suffering of a parent who has been through that and never totally heals the hole in their heart where their child was torn from them.

Hell is real but it is not permanent.
The negative energy cannot sustain itself as good energy and good will can. Love can multiply infinitely,
but ill will drains us and eventually runs its course.
Truth Justice Peace can prevail forever, but injustice and suffering, the human conscience will not tolerate forever but will seek to change it at the root cause to end the pain and to seek peace and freedom.

So that's why hell is not eternal in that sense. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't a real experience. people experience "hell" on any number of levels, and collectively it is as massive as people have preached and warned about, even symbolically. If you add up all the human suffering, wars, genocides over history, yes, it is that horrendous.

Perhaps our MEMORIES of war and what humanity went through to LEARN these lessons will remain forever as part of the indelible truth and spiritual history and process. So it will last in that sense, as a fixed part of the bigger picture.

But what will endure beyond that is the love and truth that drives humanity and life. Just because good will overcome evil and the blessings of heaven will defeat the forces of hell doesn't mean those don't exist and aren't as real as people have symbolized in religions.

Beyond being joined or separated from God, I don't know what heaven and hell are. What I do know is that people who make arguments such as Czernobog is making about coercion are not making an argument founded in reality.

 

[ding]

That is the position of people who do not believe that God exists in the first place. Can you explain to me how something you don't believe exists can be a tyrant?

The ridiculous things that you falsely claim to know to be true about God according to the most ignorant interpretation of scripture possible, even though you have never seen or heard a single word from God in your entire life and do not know him, creates the image and likeness of a capricious and puerile petty tyrant obsessed with diet and fashion and the sexual preferences of human beings..

Consequently, believers are forced by that belief established in their minds as an ideal to conform to the image and likeness of a capricious and puerile petty tyrant obsessed with diet and fashion and the sexual preferences of other human beings.

Thats why the most devout believer out there inevitably becomes a sanctimonious asshole.

How do you know what I have heard or not heard from God? You don't know anything about my journey.

 

[ding]

Its not just the Christina religion. Its all Abrahamic religions. God was very much a tyrant.

That is the position of people who do not believe that God exists in the first place. Can you explain to me how something you don't believe exists can be a tyrant?

People who do believe in God, don't see Him that way. They see Him as a loving God. Have you ever considered that maybe you don't understand God or the Bible at all?

Well, I try not to interpret it how I want. Maybe that's the difference.

Maybe or maybe you do.

 

[Meriweather]

So, to. Be. Clear. You are saying that the Omnipotent, omniscient God of all creation, had no hand in creating Hell, and has no part in condemning souls to Hell. That is really your position? You fully acknowledge that such place exists, and that non-believing souls are, in fact, condemned to spend eternity there, but God did not create that rule, or set in motion that system. That is your position. No spin, no equivocation. And you should know that as long as you keep responding with equivocal answers that cannot be tied to an actual acknowledgement of the question I am actually asking, I will keep asking the same question, until you answer the question I am actually asking. So, you can keep pivoting to non-answers, for as long as you like; I will just keep restating the question over, and over, and over until you answer it.

No, you are not quite clear yet. I am not saying--and have never said--non-believers go to hell. Those who know God and reject Him and His ways are the ones in danger of hell--or an eternity apart from God. This is an eternity they choose because love and goodness are an anathema to their own existence. They want an existence apart from God.

You seem to believe that God punishes those who do not believe. I have never said that and it is certainly not my belief.

I am not giving you "non-answers" but perhaps answers you are either not willing to accept, or more likely ones that make little or no sense from your own valid perspective.

From my own experience I cannot tell you that God created the world (although I do believe God is Creator). From my own experience I cannot tell you that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, that he suffered, died, and was buried--and rose again from the dead (although I do believe this). What I can tell you from my own experience is that loves us deeply, cares for us more than we can possibly imagine, and that we have free will. Because I have known and experienced God's love, I find it very hard to stand by when anyone claims God is a tyrant. That would be like standing by when someone claims a daffodil is poison oak.

That's all I can tell you because just because I had an experience of God, that does not make me an expert of all things God. I am not even enough of an expert to convince my own atheists whom I love deeply to continue to search out God in their own lives.

I am not here to fight or quarrel. I just love the discussion and talking about God.

 

[ding]

So, to. Be. Clear. You are saying that the Omnipotent, omniscient God of all creation, had no hand in creating Hell, and has no part in condemning souls to Hell. That is really your position? You fully acknowledge that such place exists, and that non-believing souls are, in fact, condemned to spend eternity there, but God did not create that rule, or set in motion that system. That is your position. No spin, no equivocation. And you should know that as long as you keep responding with equivocal answers that cannot be tied to an actual acknowledgement of the question I am actually asking, I will keep asking the same question, until you answer the question I am actually asking. So, you can keep pivoting to non-answers, for as long as you like; I will just keep restating the question over, and over, and over until you answer it.

No, you are not quite clear yet. I am not saying--and have never said--non-believers go to hell. Those who know God and reject Him and His ways are the ones in danger of hell--or an eternity apart from God. This is an eternity they choose because love and goodness are an anathema to their own existence. They want an existence apart from God.

You seem to believe that God punishes those who do not believe. I have never said that and it is certainly not my belief.

I am not giving you "non-answers" but perhaps answers you are either not willing to accept, or more likely ones that make little or no sense from your own valid perspective.

From my own experience I cannot tell you that God created the world (although I do believe God is Creator). From my own experience I cannot tell you that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, that he suffered, died, and was buried--and rose again from the dead (although I do believe this). What I can tell you from my own experience is that loves us deeply, cares for us more than we can possibly imagine, and that we have free will. Because I have known and experienced God's love, I find it very hard to stand by when anyone claims God is a tyrant. That would be like standing by when someone claims a daffodil is poison oak.

That's all I can tell you because just because I had an experience of God, that does not make me an expert of all things God. I am not even enough of an expert to convince my own atheists whom I love deeply to continue to search out God in their own lives.

I am not here to fight or quarrel. I just love the discussion and talking about God.

So would you say that his misstating your beliefs invalidates his premise? Has he constructed a logical fallacy straw-man of an argument. I have corrected him over and over on this subject, but still he persists. He can't argue against our beliefs, so he persists in manufacturing beliefs he can argue against. That is pathological.

pathological: compulsive; obsessive.

synonyms: compulsive, obsessive, inveterate, habitual, persistent, chronic, hardened, confirmed