MovieChat Forums > God on Trial (2008) Discussion > If God exists, does he love us?

If God exists, does he love us?


A highly thought provoking movie.
The filmmakers definitely took care not to fall into the trap of over-sentimentality which would have been easy with the holocaust as subject.
An atheist myself, I've read the Old & the New testament since it's an undeniable part of our human culture and the subject fascinates me.
If you've read the bible you'll see that the god of the old testament is neither loving nor forgiving. He comes across as a tribal wargod, not a loving father. The given arguments were all true.
I thought the movie came to a controversial but logical and satisfying conclusion, albeit an uncomfortable one to religious people.

reply

[deleted]

god is like a toy maker, once he had created a doll he doesnt care

reply

These are interesting thoughts.
However the orthodox christian viewpoint is that God loves us so much he sent Jesus (God himself) to suffer and die to save us from the eventual fate of our own waywardness. Jesus suffered terribly and so God is able to understand and meet us in our own suffering. So Jesus (God) is one who deeply cares about our lives. At least this is my belief and experience.

reply

It is a very interesting subject - whether God exists, whether he loves us or even cares about us - which has many various viewpoints and opinions, obviously based on life experiences, your upbringing and what religion you are.

I think it is interesting to note that the Gods of Norse Paganism (my religion), while being the higher powers that humans worship, all have very human qualities about them, and they too make mistakes in their own lives. It is also interesting to note that these Gods need us just as much as we need them because we will fight on their side when the evil powers attack at Ragnarok.

Not only are these Gods very human in some of the things they do, they also need us just as much as we need them.

reply

I think the point here is that this movie isn't Christian, and it isn't the Christian God or even the Christian relationship with God that this movie explores.

I'm tempted to ask why it is that Christians always seem to think that any reference to God, even by non-Christians, should conform to the Christian conception of God and how we should behave towards him. (The *current* position that is, of course; this supposedly infallible doctrine has altered dramatically, many times and in different directions, over the last two thousand years.) However that sounds, it's not meant to be churlish or mean-spirited; it's a genuine question, and I think there are a couple of valid points behind it. Firstly, Christians have never been firm, consistent or even unified on their own position towards God; and secondly, Christians are not the world's sole intermediaries to God or interpreters of God's intention, however much they would like to think they are.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

"...it isn't the Christian God...this movie explores. I'm tempted to ask why...Christians always seem to think that any reference to God, even by non-Christians, should conform to the Christian conception of God...it's not meant to be churlish or mean-spirited; it's a genuine question, and I think there are a couple of valid points behind it. " --

The short, oversimplified answer... It stems from the fact of history that Christians acknowledge the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, as a part of their Scriptures, just as Jesus Christ did. There is a common heritage, continuity, and lineage that Christians, at least Christians of the orthodox variety, have always acknowledged, that the God of Israel -- the God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, the Prophets, etc. -- is the God of Jesus' apostles (Peter, Paul, James, etc.), of the apostles' apostles (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp), of the Church Fathers (Irenaeus, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, etc.) down the line and up to the present.

reply

Glbrt, there are several problems with what you've posted -- not the least being that you haven't actually answered what I asked at all. You've basically given a recapitulation of the assumptions of entitlement Christians have made, without any support for why they should be entitled to do so. Merely asserting something doesn't make it so.

As I see it, Christians have no real lineage with Old Testament Judaism. Jesus wasn't a Christian -- the religion wasn't even thought of until several decades after his death, and then by people who had never been Jews and who were mostly quite antithetical to Jewish culture and Jewish ways of thought. Most Biblical scholars freely admit that the God that Paul invented more-or-less single-handedly has almost nothing whatsoever in common with the God of Abraham and Moses, in terms of how he was viewed and what it was deemed appropriate to expect of him and in what humankind's obligation to him might be.

I guess my question was rhetorical. I'm bemused that Christians -- who are, after all, only one of three branches of religion that claim descent from Abraham -- seem to think they're the only ones with any say on God, and appear to just expect that any mention of God or discussion of God should naturally conform to what Christians conceive him to be.


You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

"I guess my question was rhetorical. I'm bemused that Christians -- who are, after all, only one of three branches of religion that claim descent from Abraham -- seem to think they're the only ones with any say on God, and appear to just expect that any mention of God or discussion of God should naturally conform to what Christians conceive him to be."

But perhaps the Christian view of who God is is an accurate one. You may disagree, of course, but most disagreements I see on this assertion are entirely because of political correctness. "It's so arrogant for Christians to think they're belief about God is the only accurate one." Well, that is what ALL religions think. "Our belief is the correct one." If they didn't believe their belief was correct, then they wouldn't believe it.

Whether a belief is arrogant or not is completely irrelevant. All that matters is whether it is true or not (and the "arrogance" of a belief has nothing to do with its truthfulness). After all, there are many religions on the planet. The core beliefs of each religion are incompatible with the core beliefs of other religions. Two contradictory statements cannot be true. That is illogical and irrational. Muslims believe Jesus was only a human being and a prophet, but that he was not crucified and that he was not God. Either their belief about Jesus is true or it is not true. Christians believe Jesus was the messiah prophecied in the Old Testament (and that he did die on a cross for the sins of mankind). Jews (those who are not Christian) do not believe so. They cannot all be right. Only one can be right. Or, they can all be wrong. But it is not possible for all three religions to be correct, otherwise numerous contradictory statements would have to be correct. The only way in which some religions could both be right is when the doctrines of the religions in questions are in agreement. For instance, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe there is only one God. So, they can all be right in that one issue. However, the three religions differ very greatly in the specific core doctrines. So, they cannot all be correct. Not even close. This is the problem with trying to say all (or many) religions are valid. It is an illogical and irrational belief. At most, one can be valid. Because one religion being valid automaticaly invalidates all others. THey can, of course, all be wrong, in which case the atheists would be right. If atheism is true that would invalidate all religions.

When Christians talk about God, they talk about who they believe God to be. How wants to talk about something in a matter contrary to one's own beliefs? It's almost like you're expecting Christians, when talking about God, to pretend they are not Christian so that they may talk about God in a more politically correct manner. That might seem nice, but I think most religious people (not just Christians) would find it tedious to talk about God in a very generic, watered-down, non-specific manner. Just as atheists are not Christians and do not hold to their beliefs, so Christians are not atheists and do not hold to atheistic beliefs. You might not like feeling like you are expected to view God from the the Christian perspective to have a religious discussion. But, similarly, I don't think Christians want to have to view God from an atheistsic perspective (talking about God like some generic non-existent entity) to have a religious discussion. When people talk religion, they are going to bring their beliefs with them.

reply

All well and good, wintermonk, but you're "answering" things that no-one has raised.

I haven't used the word "arrogant", and I haven't said Christians shouldn't be able to believe in God the way they want to, *for themselves*. The issue is that this is not an examination of Christian thought, this movie here -- it's a Jewish one. So why should it be expected to conform Christian beliefs? That's the error in logic that's being made, and appears to be frequently made by Christians.

I pointed out that the heritage of Christian thought has been far from consistent or uniform over the last nearly-2000 years. So talking about "the Christian perspective" is nebulous at best. Even if you confine your range to merely this century, which group are you going to pick to represent "the Christian perspective"? There's enormous variation among Christians, sometimes with enormous antipathy between groups. I don't see that a Christian group trying to assert its ascendancy over another self-proclaimed Christian group, claiming its own beliefs are correct and the other group's beliefs are wrong-headed, is any different from one religion trying to tell another religion how to think about God. To some it may be a logical progression, but it's a very different thing to move from advocating one's beliefs for oneself, to telling others they're wrong and must change their way of thinking. And it's not "political correctness" to say so.


You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

"I haven't used the word "arrogant", and I haven't said Christians shouldn't be able to believe in God the way they want to, *for themselves*. The issue is that this is not an examination of Christian thought, this movie here -- it's a Jewish one. So why should it be expected to conform Christian beliefs? That's the error in logic that's being made, and appears to be frequently made by Christians."

That is true, it is a kind of God-on-trial by some Jews. However, Christians tend to believe that they are worshipping the same God as the Jews. Both accept the New Testament as Scripture. Most Jews (not all) at this point do not believe Jesus was the Messiah prophecied in the Old Testament. Christians believe he was. So yeah, Christians do have some disagreements with Jews about the nature of God, in some area. Jews still tend to look at God as a God of rules that you need to follow in order to be considered righteous and get into Heaven. Christians believe righteousness that God accepts comes from him as a gift of grace through faith. So there are going to be some differences, but I still think Christians can watch the film and find it very interesting and sort of identify with how some of the prisoners felt and also sort of agree or disagree with certain prisoners.

For instance, one prisoner asserted that God didn't break the convenant with the Jews, but that the Jews broke the covenant with God. Most Christians would probably agree with what that guy was saying.

"I pointed out that the heritage of Christian thought has been far from consistent or uniform over the last nearly-2000 years. So talking about "the Christian perspective" is nebulous at best. Even if you confine your range to merely this century, which group are you going to pick to represent "the Christian perspective"? "

Well, there is some truth to that and there isn't. Most Christians would say the Bible is the Chrisian perspective and people need to conform to that. One isn't a Christian simply because one says he is anymore than a person can say, "I am a Maple Tree" and because of that statement be one. One can think they are something and not be that something. Now, I'm not suggesting I'm the ultimate arbiter and who is and who is not genuinely Christian. But most Christians agree on some fundamental core Biblical doctrines: Salvation is by God's grace (unmerited favor) through faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning death on the Cross. There are some other core doctrines that Christians would consider a person a heretic if they don't agree with them. However, there are peripheral doctrines that Christians do disagree on and they don't see it as something that is worth disputing over. Presbyterians baptize at birth and Baptists baptize after conversion. They each have reasons for their particular belief about baptism, and both can show Bibilical verses that seem to support their position. However, Baptists and Presbyterians usually don't brand the others as heretics, because the time of Baptism is usually not seen as an essential core doctrine of Christianity. THere are some people who have said they believe in, and preach, the Bible, and yet they come up with the most outlanding ideas, and it's obvious they are twisting Scripture. They can call themselves what they wish. It's like somebody saying the U.S. Constitution is clearly a document that supports communism. It doesn't. Anybody who says it does is guilty of some serious misinterpretation. I don't pretend that I have a monopoly on the truth, that I have the ultimate say in Biblical truth. I don't know everything, and my Christians beliefs are probably not 100% perfect, but I do fully agree with the core essential doctrines of Christianity.

"I don't see that a Christian group trying to assert its ascendancy over another self-proclaimed Christian group, claiming its own beliefs are correct and the other group's beliefs are wrong-headed, is any different from one religion trying to tell another religion how to think about God. To some it may be a logical progression, but it's a very different thing to move from advocating one's beliefs for oneself, to telling others they're wrong and must change their way of thinking. And it's not "political correctness" to say so."

Is it really so bad to say to another person, "You are wrong"?

They can say. "No, I'm not. I think you are wrong."

THat's agreeing to disagree.

This idea that we have to say, "Well, this is what I think, but I don't know." That's all so weak. People should stand firm on their beliefs and say, "This is the way it is," and then they should be able to back up their assertions. Of course, people might still disagree, but at least one made a genuine effort to convince others. If somebody comes up to me and says, "Socialism is the way to go." I don't get angry and say, "You know, you should rephrase that because I'm a capitalist and that offends me. You should soften your language a little." Why? Nothing wrong with a little healthy debate. IF somebody believes socialism is the way to go, then they should say so.

In the Bible, Paul went to Athens and debated with people and said This is who the true living God is. Some agreed and most disagreed. They didn't get all whiny and offended. "Oh, don't tell us who God is. Just say it's your own personal idea and belief and that ours are just as good too..." And so on. They listened, let him have his say, and then decided to agree or diagree. Nothing wrong with that.

reply

First off let me say i am an atheist, i just think it may be relevant to some people on here who want to connect beliefs with my views.

Also if god did exist whether you count the scriptures or not he could not love us. That would be impossible.

If God loved us he would do all he could to stop our pain in this life or just send us to heaven immediately after he created us.

God could do several things that would cut down on suffering in the world and not interfere with free will.

Even god coming down and telling us what he wants us to do in the end would not interfere with our free will (we would still have a choice... and also who says god should give us free will in the first place?)

There are several examples like this i am sure and will not go into all of them.

However to make what could be a very long post short i will just end with saying i agree with the philosopher who said "god can not be all powerful and all loving" He could only be one of the 2.

Also even if god was loving and not all powerful we could expect him to use his no doubt great power to do what he could for us. Just like any parent would want to give their child all the advantages in the world to have a happy life i think it is only fair we hold god to at least this same standing if we want to call him loving.


How do I get these ideas? It's like a gift, you know? It's like I can't control it.

reply

BOBDIGITAL18: "However to make what could be a very long post short i will just end with saying i agree with the philosopher who said "god can not be all powerful and all loving" He could only be one of the 2."

Yes, many agree with that classic statement. But, of course, it assumes some things which we cannot necessarily assume. In particular, it assumes our own definition of being "loving" is the ultimate definition with which God must comply. But in fact, the Bible says that God's ways are not those of humans. God doesn't have to comply with human judgments. God is God, according to the Bible. Yes, to humans it would seem that love must manifest itself in particular ways. But what if God's love involves higher purposes or aspects which we do not understand? (And whether we are disgusted by that possibility or not, it would seem to comply with what the Bible says about God's ways.)

Because I'm not God, any example I might propose on this topic will be inadequate. Nevertheless, I will at least make one observation: When my son was very young, he did not consider my discipline of him "loving". I'm sure he considered it the opposite. Yet, when he got older, he not only understood it, he applied similar discipline to his own child. My only point here is this: we in our finite minds may ASSUME that God cannot be both all powerful and all loving -- but it is nothing unusual for one being to be perplexed by the behavior of an older/wiser/more-mature/whatever being. If that simple truth can be illustrated by comparing a child with an adult, could it not also apply to a human to his/her Creator? Indeed, even by definition alone, a Creator God would be far wiser/higher/greater than any human who he created. So is it so hard to believe that simply by definition, it is likely that God would "conceptualize" love and power in ways quite different from those of humans?

Most every physics book tells us that light can be described as a particle and as a wave. But surely a particle and a wave cannot BOTH be accurate descriptions of what we call light! They seem opposite and "counter-intuitive" in most every way. Yet, I believe physicists when they tell me (and demonstrate by various experiments) that the same light beam can be described in terms of either. I accept it even though I admit that the statement sounds extremely unlikely and even incongruous.

Frankly, I personally have more difficulties harmonizing the particle/wave duality of light than I do the omnipotent/all-loving duality of God. But I doubt I could do much to convince most of you otherwise. And because it is 1 a.m. and I'm tired, I won't even try. Amen.

reply

"Also if god did exist whether you count the scriptures or not he could not love us. That would be impossible.

If God loved us he would do all he could to stop our pain in this life or just send us to heaven immediately after he created us."

THat might be what YOU would do. Are you perfectly loving? If not, then why would you consider yourself the standard by which God should be judged. Is the love of humanity the love of God? We might have this idea of what love is. But perhaps our notion of love is not entirely accurate.

Also, do parents sometimes punish/discipline their children? Even if they do not spank, they probably do something that is unpleasant (like grounding). Children rarely say, "Thank you so much for loving me!" when their parents discipline. They, more likely, scowl and sulk. Then, of course, when they are parents they end up doing the same thing. Also, would God be good if he simply swept bad deeds under the carpet and pretended that they didn't exist? What about justice?

God might be loving. But it not just loving. He is also a just God. I think you expect a "loving God" to be some kind of cosmic Santa Claus.

"God could do several things that would cut down on suffering in the world and not interfere with free will."

He does. But pain also has a purpose. If you put your hand on a stove and feel pain, the pain is good. It is a warning, and it is your body's way of telling you to remove your hand from the stove. Pain is sometimes very healthy.

Also, if there is a hell, God would NOT be loving to make people all comfortable on earth. That would simply lull people into a false sense of security. A loving God would WARN. If there is a hell/judgment for wickedness, nobody will be able to say to God, "I didn't know you were angry. If I'd known, I would have repented." He has made is wrath very plain and revealed it for people to see (Romans 1:18).

"Even god coming down and telling us what he wants us to do in the end would not interfere with our free will (we would still have a choice... and also who says god should give us free will in the first place?)"

Okay, this is what is known as hubris. The clay telling the potter "Why did you make me like this?" The potter has the right to take a piece of clay and make it however he/she wishes.

"However to make what could be a very long post short i will just end with saying i agree with the philosopher who said "god can not be all powerful and all loving" He could only be one of the 2."

I understand that difficulty of this argument, and it's been something people have wrestled with for a long time. If I was Jewish, I would probably believe God is not good. But I am a Christian. And if the Christian belief is true, then I think it is very easy for God to be all-powerful and loving. After all, salvation is a FREE GIFT. You don't have to earn it. In fact, God did all the hard work (Christ's agonizing death on the Cross--and Christ's perfect sinless life). We don't have to be sinless. Christ did it for us. Also, God has made it clear what kind of life would be a blessed life. The reason there is misery on earth is because people prefer not to repent. It's like Satan said in the epic Paradise Lost "Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heaven." People would rather live their own little "hell" of a life rather than submit to God and find peace and joy. You find a Christian who lives 100% for God, and you will find somebody who has peace and joy and loves his/her life. It's that simple. You want to love life? Repent and submit to God. You don't have to. You can refuse God, he will let you.

C.S. Lewis in "The Great Divorce" has a character who says there are only two kinds of people. There are those who say to God "Thy will be done." And those God eventually says to them, "Thy will be done." God simply gives people what they demand. People go to hell, strangely and ironically enough, because they demand it. People who go to hell couldn't go to Heaven even if they wanted to. They would not like it. THey don't like Heaven while they are on earth. They don't enjoy holiness. They don't find church interesting. It's boring and stupid and a big waste of time. They do not have an appetite for heaven--they could not enjoy it even if they were there. People develop a taste for hell. Very strange, but that is the way it is. And people would demand to have their own way get the ultimate judgment--they get their own way! God leaves them to themeselves.

All goodness comes from God. IF God is removed from a situation, goodness goes out with him. If you remove a light from a room, darkness is left behind. If you remove heat from a room. Coldness is left behind. You cannot expect a room to not be dark if the light is taken out. SImilarly, if people demand God not be a part of their life, then God will eventually acquiesce and give people what they demand, and he will remove his presence more and more from their life, and what comes from God will go out with him. Hell will be complete and total separation from God. How awful that is cannot be imagined. It would be complete and perfect absense of anything good. It cannot be imagined, because as bad as this life is, and as evil as one is, one receives many, many blessings. Sight is a blessing. Most people would not sell their eyes for millions of dollars, and so that makes every person with the ability to see a kind of "millionaire." The ability to hear beautiful music. A blessing. People are so blind to the blessings they have. The pain and suffering is there to remind you that it will not last forever. IT comes from God, and if you demand your life have the absense of God, eventually you will get what you have asked. It's a dreadful reality.

In Greek tragedies, usually a character that had a terrible destiny would often try to resist that destiny (Oedipus the King). WHat was ironic is that the character would, in trying to escape that destiny, bring it to pass by their actions they took to try and escape. A rather sober and frightening though. But people build their own hells. If a person's life has anything "hellish" about it (and most people have their own little hells on earth too--tiny in comparison to the actual one, but a glimpse of hell nonetheless) then that ought to be a warning just like a hand on a hot stove. Change thy ways is what the pain is saying! As for pain that one does not bring on him/herself, that is also a warning from God, that he is angry and that there is a judgment to come. If God did not warn, then that would be unloving.

Also, God is just. If GOd was not merciful and not loving every single person on earth would instantly be plunged into the hell that their rebellion against God deserves. The intense suffering the Jews endured during the holocause was far less than their sins deserved. If a person could see their own sins as they really are, with perfect accuracy, that person would realize that suffering in a concentration camp is a mercy from God, because it is far less that one deserves. Waking up on earth and not in hell is God's mercy. Nobody should demand another day from God, anymore than a beggar should demand a hundred dollars from a man who gives him twenty. Receiving anything is a mercy. And God (as I've made clear above) has given people blessings that are nearly priceless. People do not see God loving them because they are blind. They see themselves as good and deserving of Heaven. Till people see themselves for how they realy are, they will never perceive the love of God. Jesus said that a man who has been forgiven much, loves much, and a man who has been forgiven little loves little. He wasn't really saying that some people have only sinned a little and need a little bit of forgviness. He was saying that some people are blind to most of their sin and so when God forgives them they don't feel much love for God because they don't see the full debt that was forgiven. Whereas, the man who was forgiven much realizes just how much he was forgiven and is thus able to love God a lot for cancelling so great a debt.

"Also even if god was loving and not all powerful we could expect him to use his no doubt great power to do what he could for us. Just like any parent would want to give their child all the advantages in the world to have a happy life i think it is only fair we hold god to at least this same standing if we want to call him loving."

In James it says, "Ye do not have because ye do not ask." People do not turn to God. Instead, they rebel against God and try to handle life on their own, and they refuse to submit to God, but decide to set and live by their own rules. In doing so, they are asking GOd to stay out of their lives. How can God bless somebody and remove himself from a person's life at the same time. That cannot happen. All good comes from God. The removal of God's presence from a person's life has consequences.

Also, the amount of pain and suffering is never sadistic. God punishes people far less than they deserve. Pain that serves to discipline and warn, he never pushes it beyond what is best for the person. He is not sadistic, and he delights not in the death and suffering of anybody.

THe way is open. Any person on this planet can have Heaven instantly. They simply need accept it. It's bought and paid for by Jesus. They need not do a single good deed to earn it (they couldn't if they tried). It is a free gift that simply need to accepted. There is no barrier to it that need be overcome but one's willingness to accept it. People don't get the blessed life of this life, and the eternal life of the next, for one simple reason: they don't want it. Every sin is a refusal of Heaven and the blessed life. It's saying, "I prefer this (hell). Because here, at least I am boss of my life."

I see it clear as the freshest water. People sin and suffer the consequences. God puts up with it over and over and over. They could do something different and be blessed, and on some level they know they would be blessed if they did it, but they choose not to, because...well, because they don't want to.

It really comes down to, Do I want to reign (be in control of my life) my own personal hell? Or, do I want to serve in Heaven." God did not make us to be out own little gods. He made us to serve him. We find peace in life, not through toys and good health and things like that (what most people think will bring them happiness), but by doing what we were made to do, which is serve God. When we surrender our rebellion against God--it is like a city that has long resisted the rightful King and open the doors and lets the King come in and reign--a blessed life is the result.

I suppose people find their own lives not too unpleasant. "This is bearable," they may say. "If this is my own personal hell, then I'll take it. I don't mind it, and I get to be boss. I'm not suffering too much. Perhaps life could be better if I submitted, but I like being independent and doing things my way."

You see the situation here? On the one hand, if God gives people too much suffering, it would be sadistic. If he doesn't allow enough, they would be complacent. God wants people to know that there is wrath to come. He doesn't want to be sadistic and torture people. He doesn't want their to be meaningless suffering. But he also wants people to not get comfortable with a life that has a horrible destination if it is persisted in till the end. He wants people to see that sin produces death and suffering and "hell." How can he do this if he makes people's lives blissful? That would be a wicked deception, like a mirage in a desert--you toward it thinking there is water there only to die in a hot desert. God doesn't want to lull people to thinking good is ahead if there is death and fire ahead. Some of the pain and suffering people endure is, sometimes, a glimpse of the hell ahead. Do we want God to give us mirages to give us false hope of some glorious future? That would be deceptive, and thus evil. God does not give people mirages. He shows beautiful things in the world to give people a glimpse of the glories and beauty of Heaven. He lets people experience pleasure to know there is pleasure to be had. But he also lets people suffer, and he chastens people, to let people knoow there is also wrath and judgment to come. The suffering God inflicts on men, or simply allows, is never ever sadistic.

Of course, the intellectual knowledge of suffering doesn't make it much easier. Job wrestled with his intense suffering--read the book of Job. And he was a righteous man. Ultimately, it's impossible to know all the reasons behind everything that happens, including some of the suffering we endure. Is it best and brave to decide to raise a fist at God in defiance? I don't think so. Perhaps some who believe in God think it is courageous to do so. I would disagree.

reply

Wintermonk:

Excellent presentation on a challenging topic!

You've drawn well from a great many excellent sources. And I commend you for starting from the right point: that people who are "stumped" by these issues rarely stop to realize that they are IMPOSING on God their own limitations. They assume that God must show love and justice according to THEIR standards instead of his. Considering that the God of the Bible is described as infinite and holy -- while humans are not -- their presuppositions are without foundation. (At the very least, they are stacking the deck in advance to make their question sound more formidable than it actually is.)

It's so nice to see some reflections on Dante. Internet forums (like the classic statement about television) tends to be a vast wasteland. (No offense to those who have posted thoughtful observations. IMDB certainly does better than many of the forums out there. But you know what I mean about Internet forums in general. Not a lot of gems lying around for the taking.)

If I was still in the classroom, I would assign your essay for the apologetics segment. Touche. (I do hope someone will pick up the thread and even attempt to answer your challenges. Good luck to them.)



reply

Here's the problem with the "We can't comprehend the ways of God, and therefore what looks like the greatest evil to us is good when performed by Him" argument, vulnerable:

If this is the case, then it means humans have no capability to ascertain what is good and what is evil.

If a given action is perceived to be evil when performed by a human on a small scale, but perforce good when performed by God on a grand scale...because He is God, and therefore the morality of His actions is on a different scale than ours...whence then comes morality? In what way are we to judge ANY action to be evil or good?

The whole argument seems to amount to "What God does is good by definition, because He is God." That's disturbingly close to an ultimate expression of "Might makes right."

Is God good because He has the power to define anything He does as "good?" Or is He good because there is an absolute standard of goodness?

reply

wintermonk's post is a prime example of how believers in the God of Abraham are brainwashed into believing that humans are both created by a loving God in his own image while simultaneously being defective and undeserving of that love.
It's a sadistic mentality much like an abusive parent who teaches their child that they're deserving of the punishment they receive which eventually leads the child to developing a variation of Stockholm Syndrome.
The child is thus in a circular belief that they're bad and that their punisher is right to beat them, and when the punisher is not beating them they grow to love and defend them.
The child needs to be rescued from their poisoned teachings to realize that a good parent would not have brought you into their world to have you suffer and live in fear of them.

reply

wintermonk, do you actually have a point in there anywhere?

I mean, other than the strawmen and the blurred distinctions and the apparent claim to authority, do you actually have a point to make?


You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

Very good wintermonk.
Of course, if a Christian is speaking of how they believe God to be, it is an accurate account to them. If they didn't believe they were correct, they would simply not believe.
All of the wars and arguments in religions' name stems from our belief against yours. Nobody is trying to bait anybody, people's self-righteousness and arrogance only fuels the fire.

reply

anical4 wrote: "All of the wars and arguments in religions'[sic] name stems from our belief against yours."

1) "All" applied to almost anything usually breaks down rather quickly after some serious thought.

2) The only part of this statement which is generally true is the "stems from our belief against yours" -- but the "our belief" in a great many cases has little to do with religion (despite the use of religious language in many cases). A superficial view of world history may assume that the issue is always religion. But if you take the time to actually study the circumstances of a great many military conflicts between nations, religion was simply the convenient excuse. The primary causes in most of those cases comes down to (a) "your country has something I want" (anything from natural resources to the productivity/manpower of the people of that country), or (b) "My country wants to punish your country for some insult", or (c) "My ideology is superior to your ideology" (and despite attempts by some to redefine "religion" in such a way that virtually every ideology is deemed a religion, many ideologies are just plain secular).

You see, especially in modern times it is common practice to avoid mentioning the REAL reason for armed aggression. (It's just not kosher [yes, that's a joke] to admit "We want your natural resources and wish to enlarge our borders" or whatever. So it is often more convenient to talk about "the will of God" or some other semi-noble religious quest. I could give examples but I'm sure anyone with any history background already can name at least half a dozen of them.)

So.....it sounds like somebody has been drinking the Dawkins Kool-Aid again. There's a difference between religion and hiding behind religion. (Indeed, the least religious among a people are often the ones who most appeal to religion for justifications for their actions.)

reply

You asked "why...Christians always seem to think that any reference to God, even by non-Christians, should conform to the Christian conception of God...," and so I answered WHY a Christian would think this. Whether or not you agree with the why is another matter. If I have merely given a recapitulation of Christian "assumptions," it is because it is not clear how many non-Christians are aware of these historical assumptions/assertions. But I am glad that you are honest enough to admit that your question was rhetorical.

reply

Thanks so much for even suggesting my honesty was in doubt. A little bit condescending of you, don't you think?

I would suggest that the question, as I asked it, hasn't been answered. There's been a lot of recapitulation of how entitled Christians are, and repeated assertion that Christians somehow own the lineage of Judaism, all of it in tones that suggest that anyone who thinks otherwise is simply uninformed, but precious little self-reflection on the part of Christians here as to why they make those assumptions, or the validity of them. If I'd wanted to simply hear the party line, there are plenty of mindless tracts out there I could have read. They're published on an almost-daily basis.


You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

>These are interesting thoughts.
>However the orthodox christian viewpoint is that God loves us so much he sent >Jesus (God himself) to suffer and die to save us from the eventual fate of our >own waywardness. Jesus suffered terribly and so God is able to understand and >meet us in our own suffering. So Jesus (God) is one who deeply cares about our >lives. At least this is my belief and experience.

God created us and he didn't know what is it to suffer for people? It doesn't make any sence.

reply

Jesus suffered? He doesnt even know what real suffering is. Holocaust victims suffered. And that is more and much much longer than him. Thousands of them.
And it is not a sacrifice when you know beforehand that you will be ressurected and fly up in your kingdom of heaven. Thats not even close to love.

reply

Christians believe that Christ suffered all the pains, suffering, and sins of humanity in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. That means he personally suffered the pains of every single holocaust victim. That was the sacrifice, not the mere act of dying.

reply

Yesterday, I bought some really nice apples. They were so nice I polished them up until they were sparkling and arranged them in a beautiful crystal bowl on my dining table. I was sure to tell my oldest son that he would be punished severely if he ate any of them because that kid sure loves apples!

You can imagine my surprise this morning when I went into the kitchen and found that one of the apples was sitting there in the bowl half eaten. Yeah, that kid loves apples all right...

As you can understand this put me in quite a predicament, but not to worry, it's all good now. I sat him down and explained to him that I'd promised to punish him and I couldn't very well not follow through on that... it was a promise after all, and I ain't no liar! Lying is bad! Now, I'm a pretty tough father, so the punishment I had settled on was to burn him alive. As you can imagine, the kid was pretty distraught but I'd already solved this for him.

You see, before I spoke to him I'd taken my youngest son into the garden and nailed him to a wooden cross as a payment for my eldest's transgression so he didn't have to be punished at all! Unless of course he ever decided to disobey or denounce me... then he'd be heading for the fire again.

I think you can agree this is a pretty powerful representation of just how much I love my children!

reply

I am an atheist. I highly agree your "He comes across as a tribal wargod, not a loving father." I am glad the "GOD ON TRIAL" mentioned the ten plagues in Egypt, which I also found the hardest to make sense, merely proved the brutality of a supposedly 'loving' god.

reply

If God exists....we have no way of emperically or scientifically determining as a matter of fact whether or not God exists. We may choose to believe either way. If God does exist, we still have no way of emperically proving so. It is a thing that can neither be proved nor disproved. If God exists, we also have no way of proving anything of his purpose, intentions or attitude in creating life and all matter that we observe. But part of the struggle of human beings has always included the quest to understand how we came to be. In my view, humans have throughout recorded history drawn conclusions based on what things are seen, heard, touched, observed. Underlying this entire train of thought is the assumption that "logic" and "reasoning" are the human characteristics which we employ to make sense of our world, to study it, to effect things in ourselves and in our environments. One can ask the question, is there a likelihood that one argument is superior to the other? Try BOTH. Begin with the assumption there is no God/Creator. Make explanation of all that is, based on that assumption. Then, try the other assumption, and follow it everywhere it might lead. It is a choice we make to either believe there is a God, or to believe there is not. In terms of the human system of logic, the more intelligent choice may be agnosticism, to honestly admit that one simply does not know as a certainty that God exists. Some think that evolution is scientific evidence that no entity created all that is. Personally, I don't think there is a shred of evidence that evolution would conflict with the notion of a Creator. One's view of the literary collection known as the Bible is a determining factor for many or most of Christians and Jews. Writings about God are from human perceptions only. If the God we "see" in the Old Testament is not the same as the God in the New Testament, it would certainly be no evidence as to the true nature of God. Rather, the writings merely reveal the PERCEPTIONS of the people doing the writing. If God exists, we may make the assumption that God is Supreme, unchanging, logical, compassionate or even indifferent or evil. This is the stuff of the entire story of civilization, and can be begun even in this brief summary;however, it is a subject which could be debated for the length of human history...and that is assuming human history has a verifiable beginning or a verfiable end. The film captures the essense of the struggle to understand during a specified time in history, and one which draws upon the greatest flaws as well as the greatests triumphs of the human experience.

reply

To everyone on this thread: believers and non believers as well always insist God, Gawd, or god is a he. Silly.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

I have enjoyed and appreciated this thread in many ways -- even if basically every point made on the various sides of the issue has been around for a very long time and has already been published in countless venues. So I won't attempt to step in and write a lengthy answer to every question raised. (Others have done so over the centuries and I won't claim that I can do a better job of it.) However, I can't help but address two slightly amusing comments made above:

* From puirt-a-beul: "Most Biblical scholars freely admit that the God that Paul invented more-or-less single-handedly [sic] has almost nothing whatsoever in common with the God of Abraham and Moses, in terms of how he was viewed and what it was deemed appropriate to expect of him and in what humankind's obligation to him might be."

Yes, inevitably in these kinds of online discussions, someone will attempt to add weight to at least part of their position by saying in a very casual way what MOST BIBLICAL SCHOLARS allegedly "freely admit" about something. Of course, what they REALLY mean is "Most Biblical scholars who happen to believe as I do about this topic would admit that........"

I chuckle about that because my professor title and my publishing career get me labeled with the "Biblical scholar" title and for more years than I can count I attended the joint meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion. (A few years ago the two academic societies parted ways by organizing separate conferences but there is still much overlap in membership.) Anyway, I don't know if puirt-a-beul did a survey of "most Biblical scholars" or if he and I share many of the same friends in these two organizations and we are summarizing their views simply by virtue of knowing them for a long time. But unless he attended as a member of a very small clique, he would know that there is a huge "spectrum" of beliefs and non-beliefs represented at these conferences and I myself can hardly hazard guessing exactly how many of the Biblical scholars in attendance would agree with his "Most Biblical scholars" generalization. But I CAN say that many HUNDREDS of scholars in attendance serve on faculties of Evangelical institutions -- and they most certainly would NOT agree with puirt-a-beul's summary statement. In fact, I would not at all be surprised if a typical year's actual attendance of scholars would mean that the MAJORITY of them would disagree with his statement. So please: If someone introduces some argument of non-belief by saying "Most Biblical scholars [agree with me in denying something]", take it with a grain of salt. I have found that whatever the assertion, it is often quite obviously untrue and almost always without supportive documentation. (Yes, I can make a sweeping generalization of my own....with a bit of a wink.)


* Also, Bathwater_of_the_Gods makes a similarly naive statement by saying: "To everyone on this thread: believers and non believers as well always insist God, Gawd, or god is a he. Silly."

The statement displays a misunderstand of linguistics and translation issues. (1) The Hebrew Bible chooses to describe YHWH in masculine terms in the majority of the contexts. [I'm keeping this simple and won't get into the myths that surround most people's understanding of linguistic gender.] So it makes good sense that we discuss a text using the ancient text's own terms and descriptions. (2) The Bible (both the Old and New Testaments/Covenants) teaches that God is a SPIRIT and not a "biological being". So even though masculine terms were chosen, that does not mean that we are to assume that God is a man (or a woman or any other human being). So "take a chill pill" about God's gender, please. (3) English -- as with many other languages -- has no pronouns for describing an animate being who has no gender. Our language FORCES us to call someone/something "he", "she" or "it". If God is alive but has no physical gender, common sense tells us that the neuter "it" would be misleading because the God of the Bible is described as the LIVING God -- while "it" infers a non-living, inanimate object. So it is NOT "silly" to continue the Bible's convention of referring to God as masculine as in the pronoun "he". Indeed, until the English language comes up with an "animate" version of "it" (or a genderless version of he/she), siding with traditional Bible translations makes good sense. So the bottom line is that whether one approaches the Bible from a Jewish or a Christian viewpoint, there is no denying that the Bible refers to YHWH/God in the masculine gender even while admitting that God is NOT a human male. So if anyone is being "silly", it must surely be whoever has independently decided to insist that they know better than to think the God of the Bible is a "he". (And it is "silly" to proudly proclaim one's ignorance of these facts and the ancient languages of the Bible by dogmatically denouncing anyone who refers to God using the masculine pronoun.)

OK? Now...let the silliness continue!

reply

Hello Prof, I am not used to being called "naive" and it is rather quaint for me. However, I will agree with the term in that I am not a linguist, though I have an acquaintance with some of its most interesting points and weirdnesses. Unlike you I am not a religious scholar as a professional, but I have given some sermons on things widely disparaging of believers and disbelievers of various stripes. I,too, donot have a degree in RS, but, assuming you are a PHder or something equally riveting, I salute you. I am a lowly MS holder and have danced under the full moon on the high holy nights of Samhain. Aside from that, I am just an ordinary seminary trained schmuck. Even so, I kind of enjoyed being taken down a notch by such a well reasoned arguement. Sleep well, my friend, there are varying degrees of ignorance.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

To Bathwater_of_the_Gods:

Samhain!? Really? Well then: Happy Celtic New Year to you!

(And if you are ever in the mood for a good ol' fashioned etymological puzzle to solve, do a little tracking of "Samhain" in Proto-Indo-European and descendent tongues. It probably can't compete with the post-harvest thrills of those high holy nights but it just might provide a good cure for an occasional case of insomnia.)


reply

Thanks again Prof. Have you read Robert Graves "The White Goddess" and if you have, what thinketh you of it?

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

As to "The White Goddess", yikes, it has been 30 years (uhh, more like 33 years, come to think of it) since I read it. I guess I would have to say that it is "impressive".....but I had a sneaking suspicion that it was as Hilda Ellis Davidson later described it. (I forget her exact words but I would suspect it to be something close to "a brilliant snow job!" Graves had a way of making almost anything sound impressive.)

reply

To Vulnerable 101-1
Just had to thank you for the enjoyable "brain-stretching and spirit-filling"
discussions that you shared with us. :-) You might not read this since your writing all took place last year, but I just had to share--which is something I've never been inclined to do on this site before!
Who would have thought that just being curious about a movie would produce such a delightful Sunday afternoon of reading, and thinking? I'd love to know some of the books/articles you have written as I really do enjoy your style. If possible to share? Thank you again. minnier3

reply

I know this is an old post but I would like to respond to it:
If, as everyone always claims, we are all made in God's image then wouldn't God be a multi-sexual being? God would not be male or female, IT would have both male and female parts. Therefore, calling God a "he" is, as you stated, silly.

reply

God love us in the same way a farmer loves a single stalk of wheat in a thousand acre field.

Clifford Stern...."Last time I was inside a woman was when I visited the Statue of Liberty"

reply

To me the idea of a god loving us doesnt hold much meaning. If a god felt love,it would be coming from the brain, But if god had a brain, it means that it was created, and since at least the abrahamic religions tell us that god has always existed, there could be no possible way any kind of higher power, including their god, could feel any emotion at all.That would mean that their god was created..making it not god. It would completely contradict with the facts.I dunno...maybe im totally off. whatever.:)

reply

My religion is the utmost in worthlessness. Our main sacrements are teaching crippled spastics to dance and teaching the armless how to eat with chop stix.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

God loves us more than anyone else can.

According to the Bible, "God is love." John 4:8

And He loved us so much, "that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " John 3:16

The Bible also says that God shows us his love "in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

He has provided the ultimate gift of love; He sent His Son to pay for our sins by His death on the cross and to rise in triumph over death. Though we deserve eternal damnation, if we trust in Christ's sacrifice for us, we are assured eternal life with him in heaven.

The apostle John wrote that those who trust in Christ "may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God. " 1 John 5:13

God is non-intrusive. He gave you free will. If you wish to believe in nothing, that is your free will and your choice.

reply

Science flies men to the moon.
Religion flies men into the sides of skyscrapers.

If God(tm) can heal the sick, cure the lame, and make the blind see, then He must hate amputees - because never in recorded history has God(tm) ever grown someone a new arm or leg. Cured lots of drunks, sure, cleared up a "tumor" here or there - OK, if you say so - but not enough juice to sprout the tip of a pinky finger? Sounds kind of bush-league to me.

And before you fundies get your panties in a wad, I didn't specify *which* God(tm), I mean *any* God(tm).

reply

You are pouring out bible quotes as if everybody views it as fact and youve just proven something. A lot of people view the bible as a work of fiction. I can do the same thing with random bible quotes as well.

Ezekiel 4:12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
Cake made out of human feces....yummmmy.

James 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

Why would this dude not want it to rain...youd think if god cared about the earth so much he would i dunno...ignore this guys prayers. What prompts god to make all these desicions about what prayers he does and doesnt answer.What makes him answer the prayer of a kid who wants it to snow on the day of the big exam, and not to the starving people praying for rain so they can survive?

You say god is non intrusive...do you pray? because if you do then you are asking your non intrusive lord to come in and help out. Can't have it both ways duder.

reply

he doesn't exists.. and because of that - he certainly doesn't love us, lol..
what a stupid joke..

reply

If Gawd exists, it loves us inbetween two pieces of bread. Yum Yum!!!!

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

he doesn't exist.(period)

reply


Wintermonk...bravo...I salute you. As a Muslim, I cannot agree with you more on how God should act and do. In the quran...

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

However we differ in you in that we regard Jesus as a prophet or just a messenger to bring glad tidings and also concept of sins. We believe that all humans are sinless from birth and that sins are not inherited. Nobody can cleanse our sins (not Jesus) except God. Also, we have to earn (doing good deeds) our place in heaven and also with the grace of God.

reply

No god, no jesus just nonsense and superstitious rubbish.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

I totally agree.
Also the Quran has lots of scientific facts that can't be disregarded, people till this day think there are only 2 ways; either christian or Atheist, however I believe Christians are misinformed and atheists too arrogant to believe in God, with much respect to both.

reply

Atheists are too smart and too strong to believe in God. Simple as that. Believers use circular reasoning to "prove" the existence of God. The only "proof" they have is that bible says so. The bible also says the following:
- You should sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)
- You are allowed slaves (Lev. 25:44)
- You should put someone to death for working on Sunday (Exodus 35:2)
- Eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10)
- Haircuts and shaving are an abomination (Lev. 19:27)
- Those who wear mingled fabrics (such as cotton/polyester blend) will face severe retribution (Lev. 19:19)
- Those who curse the Lord in vain shall be stoned (Lev. 24:10-16)

Therefore, anyone who believes in God must follow those rules as well.

Religion, and a belief in a higher power, is a crutch for the weak. Those who aren't strong enough to handle the fact that when we die, that is it. That bad things happen and there is no reason behind it (God does not have some master plan. that consists of people blowing up buildings) The people who aren't strong enough to deal with these issues (and others) fall back on the idea of this all-powerful being protecting people in the end.

reply

But why put down people who do believe. Why are believers called stupid sheep? I don't think the non believers are given as much grief by the believers as non believers give the believers. Why can believers ignore that there are non believers in the world but non believers get in everyone's face telling them they are wrong in believing in god if they choose to?

I am secure in my belief and no matter if I am told I am a fool to believe in god, it my freedom to believe. No one can take that right away not even people who choose to not believe.

The day we are told we cannot believe in something is the day non believers have voted in a person thinks he is god and should be worshiped as such

Speak freely while you still can

reply

Honestly, maybe not on this board but in general, people who out right say they are atheist or even agnostic get put down day in and day out. I have lost good friends because anytime I talked to them they felt they had to "save me". I have lost friends because of what I believe. Have you? I never once told my "friends" they had to stop believing, I never once pushed my beliefs on them. Aside from some messages boards where I really just play devil's advocate, or try to just discuss maturely, I have NEVER pushed my beliefs on anyone. I feel we all have the freedom to belief whatever we want. If you want to believe in god then go for it. It's organized religion I have a problem with but that's a WHOLE other argument. On a person to person basis, go ahead an believe in whatever higher power you want.

You say non believers always push their beliefs and believers don't. Can I ask you, when's the last time you got a "be an atheist. find the truth" flier in your mailbox? Probably never because we don't do that. I get people knocking on my door, leaving pamphlets, shoving them in my face on the streets saying "jesus will save you." and when you don't take it they scream and yell hateful things. And you think it's non believers that give all the grief? give me a break.

reply

Nope, God doesn't love everyone. Not the God in the Bible. He only loves Jews, who are those predestinated and circumcised of the heart and not all who call themselves "Jews"

And whoever said Jesus isn't a Christian, well, that's true in the sense that He isn't a follower of Himself. But what has been called Christianity is basically from Jesus' birth and after, which is prophesied in the Old Testament and a continuation of God's plan.

The Old Testament preceded the New the way Genesis precedes Exodus. You can't have one without the other. It all goes together. Christianity isn't 2000 years old. It is the fulfillment of a promise and prophesied much earlier and a plan God had since the beginning. It is OLD.

Some believe God punished Jews by Hitler for their disobedience in the Old Testament and also used that as a means to keep the promise of giving them back their land. I don't know and haven't decided if I believe this although He did promise to give them back their land and it could be true. But that doesn't make self-proclaimed Jews immune from Hell fire. I say this as an Israelite descendant who believes Jesus is the messiah.

One last time, by reading the Bible it is clear God does not love everyone. Jesus said few would find the narrow gate. Jesus said His sheep are given to Him by the Father and that He wouldn't lose even one. That means most are going to hell because God wants them there and hates most people. God even says He hated Esau and loved Jacob before even either one was born and either had yet done any good or evil. These are just two of many examples and expressions in the Bible that God hates most people and He even says He made most people to be taken and destroyed and they are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. When God appears to make bad things happen to the ones He loves, He does it for chastising because He loves them and wants to conform them to the image and likeness of His only begotten Son Jesus.

Take it or leave it, but that's the Bible.

PS. Prayer changes nothing. Prayer means to submit to God's will and doesn't mean to ask for things like make it rain cause you would like it to or to get a new car. God preordained everything so if you think the Bible is fiction and don't believe it, don't worry about it, because likely that's what you are supposed to do and you can't help it either.


You wouldn't dare!
http://thesentinel.fcpages.com/

reply

"Nope, God doesn't love everyone. Not the God in the Bible. He only loves Jews, who are those predestinated and circumcised of the heart and not all who call themselves "Jews" "

...for the rest of us, Gawd made Sand Worms. That'll teach us filthy Goyim. Er, sorry, wrong story.

Tell us the one about the dead guy coming out of his hole in the spring, and if he sees his shadow.....

reply

I like yer statements; pure and polyunsaturated.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

Don't know which is worse.
The evangelical God-bothering Christians or the evangelical atheists.

I say we should have respect for people's religious or non-religious views as long as these views do not infringe the rights of others or disrespect who or what they are.

Jesus loves you... but I'm His favourite!

reply

Respecting someone's right to HAVE an opinion is not the same as respecting the opinion itself.

You might believe there are fairies at the bottom of your garden, that the stork brings babies when mummy and daddy kiss or that the universe was farted into existence by a neon pink cephalopod sometime last thursday.

I respect your, and anyone's, right to hold those opinions. Really, I do.

If however someone is short sighted enough to actually mention, in conversation, that they are indeed their beliefs, I will guffaw and tell them plainly how dumb they are. Silly beliefs are silly whether they are held by one person alone or one billion worldwide.

reply

[deleted]

There is no God.

reply