The debate "God loves all" was started by
November 5, 2016, 12:58 pm.
56 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
neveralone posted 23 arguments to the agreers part.
Blue_ray posted 6 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 19 arguments, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, neveralone posted 1 argument, Radhikadhawan posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
dalton7532, neveralone, jack_tim_45, GodisGod, metheonlyme, Eruptionz, ItsMeLintag, Jesmin, harshita, allyssa, Rajat, MlgLeprechaun69, Ematio, human, MrLuke and 41 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, rob5998, Blue_ray, TheExistentialist, Radhikadhawan, north, ProfDoke and 14 visitors disagree.
Hmm it varies from person to person. Hahaha
unless u don't believe in him.:-)
God is a really big topic.. That we can never be sure about, we actually don't have any proof about the existence of God or not... No data nothing at all... It just depends on our belief. How we want to see him.
I'm sorry maybe I missed it, I was referring to God's threat of damnation and it's effect on human behavior. I don't know anything about a clearly stated mandate to kill. can you please site one within the new/old testament?
why do you declare humanity as violent? what are you comparing it to? what is the border of violent? 1 conflict? 100? were you expecting a violence free history from any creature which evolved in a survival of the fittest ecosystem? we won't be able to judge the violence of our history until we find another species that has dominated it's world and became it's own only competition. for all we know we could have had a comparitably tame past.
those isolates tribes may be peaceful... but that's probably more due to their isolation rather than nature. they also, all the way into the 21st century are still living in tribes with relatively minimal progress or culture. I don't think that is the end goal you would prefer. instead let us consider the earlier forms for what eventually became the greater human civilization, like the towns of Mesopotamia which attacked and conquered each other regularly. at the same time that was the first introduction of laws which applied to the wealthy and the commoners equally, although not yet fairly.
my personal theory is that religion was of utmost importance in bringing order in our early, most savage time, and without it our cultural and civil progress would be several millenia behind.
as for our darkest times, that was only Christianity, although not exactly anything from the bible, just a post jesus interpretation and an elite ensuring maintenance of a status quo that had nothing to do with their fake faith. Islam on the other hand held on to the torch of learning and exploring through the dark ages and the Jews always maintained learning as a high virtue within their secluded ghettos. your generalizing from an extremely small sample.
the first is for u to choose though I'm glad to see u trying to figure things out. He's God I'm not even sure if he had a sex. though Bible wise he made Adam in his image. probably called a he for simplicity. also does his sex matter? He might not even have one.it definitely opens a lot of doors.
it is sometimes like that.
I just want more open mind to everything. it's okay u arnt alone. I wasn't always a Christian.
again a choice. he isn't pushing his weight. he is Luke the officer who u can choose to help u or not.
salvation is good to us
because it's being with God. God did not tell them to do that. a man did. just like with Hitler who is what most would say is the most evil person. he blinded them. do u say that Germans are evil since Hitler got them blinded?
but u choose not to believe in him. ok thats ur choice. we are in an debate that has God already existing so that part doesn't pertain in a way. idk
we don't know a lot. does all the debates have to be on exact fact of everything? we have choices. simply saying if we actually have free will in a way don't we have to believe in the possibility of multiple timeline?
I mean more like at the present there are no other paths but God sees two. path a and b in ur future. he guides u there and want u to take one but says u get to choose after that it might close off. but again not a hundred percent here.
reality is a bad word for this because reality differs between people.
oh sorry for that.
GOD'S MAKING ME CRAZY. DOES HE EVEN EXIST? OR IS HE EVEN 'HE'. MAYBE BELIEVING IN IT IS TOO HYPOTHETICAL.
OH SHIT. I AM PUKING. IAM TIRED. DOES GOD EVEN EXIST???
Maybe i was too harsh on religion robert owens.
"He's all powerful but we do not fear that he will use it on us..."
So you don't believe he will cause anyone's damnation that does not follow his commands? Isn't that the basis of Pascal's wager?
"salvation is great to us...."
I know, that's why it's coercive. Why do you think people flocked to the crusades other than the promise of immediate salvation if you die for the holy war? A promise of something in exchange for obedience is still coercion.
"...would argue that u hate the idea of being with Christ for eternity...."
I don't know if I would.....I don't know who or what God is. Like I said, I can't rule out an evil God so I don't know if I'd wanna spend eternity with him/it. It's not like I "hate" God. I just don't believe in him, so being with him for eternity is neither here nor there. The eternal damnation part however, is something I could do without.
I think this is getting super speculative since we don't even know that parallel universes exist...I do appreciate the attempt though. If you need to invoke other universes to show that there may be some positive reflections of God's will , doesn't that make God's nature arbitrary at best and doesn't it also make him an impersonal God? How can you call something a personal God when he simply splits off another universe every time you make a decision and thus doesn't effect your life at all, but simply grants an alter-ego a better life which you yourself can't even experience? Since he then creates an equal number of "bad" and "good" universes (law of large numbers says it would be about equal) you'd have to say that God is both good and evil at the same time. This in turn means you'd have to see how his will shapes your universe to determine if God is good or evil in your universe.
This brings us back to where we started (well sort of). Either God's nature is arbitrary or it's relative to the reality which you occupy. If it's the latter, you can't rule out an evil God. You have shown the possibility of an arbitrary God in the first, which actually surprised me a bit.
don't understand the first part until the blaming. we have made mistakes but everyone has done this so it shouldn't matter. it seem to me (idk if it's true) that they are trying to use religion as a scrape goat for all the bad in the world when we have done.admittadly besides what nemiroff just said I get frustrated that everyone takes the bad in the religions but never the good. but thats a debate I'll probably make in the morning to see what others think.
nope. thats not wrong. so you dont blame religion for sexism and violence????
yes, ironically watching God's not dead two right now. think a lot of people on this app would be interesting to everyone on here
you still awake?
religion is just a part. u would be hard pressed to defend anything that's about violence. this just happens to be religion.
again love nor hate.say that those people are too religious and need to be overruled so that u can teach them right. does that not count? oppression of women? people were sexist for many reasons. religion is just being ur scrape goat. that is why we learn history, to not repeat the mistakes of our ancestors is it not?
violence still happened. would u say the same if they happened to be atheist?
I would argue it has produce much good. when something bad happens religious people group together and help do they not? for example a part of the tithe in my church goes to people in my town who have no food. is that wrong?
I don't doubt that mankind is a violent species. However, you would be hard pressed to justify the kind of violence that came from religion through secular thought. The fact that you have a supernatural mandate to destroy other civilizations and are able to mobilize armies under the banner of salvation (the crusades) would not be possible under purely secular regimes. The dark ages, the inquisition, witch hunts, the oppression of women, all find their roots in scriptures. While we see some examples of this throughout the world, the judeo-christian traditions have a long standing track record of taking violence to extremes.
We can look at low contact tribes in the jungles and see that conflicts aren't usually handled via the extermination of another tribe. Rather you see spurts of violence and then some form of reconciliation via payment etc... We saw the same with native american tribes. Their way of warfare was much different than their Christian conquerors.
I'd argue that religion hasn't produced enough good, or the kind of good, that would make up for it's shortcomings. I would further argue that much of what we consider "good" now actually stems from secular reasoning (i.e. marriage equality, abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage, etc...). We had "rules" similar to judeo-christian "rules" long before their scriptures appeared and had civilizations that functioned very much like modern democracies. If anything, you can argue that the introduction of judeo-christian tradition helped plunge the world into an intellectual and humanitarian abyss for centuries.
sorry been at work
definitely reason I mean He's all powerful but we do not fear that he will use it on us. its like a police officer. he could easily kill u but he uses the gun and power to protect u.
salvation is great to us. it means eternity with God but I would argue that u hate the idea of being with Christ for eternity. would u prefer to be forced to be with Him?
I think this is where a multiple timeline comes in. bow this isn't a fully cemented idea so bear with me. there comes a time where u can choose a choice to go with God or not and when u choose the timeline splits. there is the time u went with Him and the time u didn't. there is probably a time where there is no war
which we have because we sinned but not the point. He knows each timeline and in one ur atheist in another u could be a passionate pastor. God gives u the choice and if he only saves u in one isn't it worth it?
it supports evil people not an evil God.
"God is all knowing and thus knew the consequences of following his scriptures. He knew that it would cause wars, torture, and unjust death. He not only knew it, but he coerced mankind to act accordingly by promising them salvation or damnation. "
true, but we are looking at it from a limited perspective. perhaps with free will it would be impossible for our species, throughout the spam of our many tens of millenia, including our ignorant early days, would not war and kill and hate? and perhaps in the long run, not giving these primitive beings guidance would have resulted in a much bloodier history than even the one we have now?
you can't say we have not been getting steadily and progressively better as "human beings" over the centuries.
not all religions preach a perfect salvation of either heaven or hell.
Judaism for example is extremely vague on afterlife details.
Granted, I can't prove my case beyond doubt either, but i would argue that the evidence supports an evil God more than it does a good God.
You're twisting my argument a little bit here. I'll clarify.
I'm arguing that there is reason to fear God in the scriptures. People act in accordance to God's will out of that fear. I'm not claiming that every follower operates under that fear, however, I maintain that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are "God fearing people" (where do you think that term comes from?).
I also argue that the promise of salvation is a coercive method due to the implied threat of not receiving salvation. If salvation was guaranteed and not subject to being obedient to God's will, then it wouldn't be coercive. However, salvation is conditional. That condition implores people to act in accordance to the scriptures.
God is all knowing and thus knew the consequences of following his scriptures. He knew that it would cause wars, torture, and unjust death. He not only knew it, but he coerced mankind to act accordingly by promising them salvation or damnation.
Based on the content of the scriptures, God's virtues, and the real world consequences of God's will, I maintain that we have evidence to support an evil God.
If you can't resolve the conflicts of God's word, the real world consequences of his word, and his supposed goodness or somehow demonstrate that God's nature must necessarily be good, you can't actually substantiate your own topic.
u say we follow out of fear. this simply isn't true.
sure there can be fear but that kind of fear is in everything. it's illogical to just put it with us.
So what? That's anecdotal. What value does that bring to your argument?
Are you claiming that every follower of every judeo-christian faith and every sect contained therein does the same? Are you claiming that there is no evidence in scripture to fear the act of disobeying God? Are you claiming that it's unreasonable to fear damnation for not following God's mandate? Are you claiming that its unreasonable to believe there to be negative consequences for not following scripture?
You have to make substantiated, universal claims. Anecdotal evidence only serves to distract from the larger point, which is why it's often referred to as the "person who... fallacy"
I follow out of forgiveness not fear of punishment.
When the choice is made under the umbrella of coercion, then yes. If we accept that scripture is true, the we have to accept that God is coercive. We have a legal term for this as well "duress".
In a sense, people who actively believe in God and follow his scriptures due to their belief, are acting under duress of eternal punishment. God, not they, are therefore culpable for their actions.
If people went to war with other religions without any mandate from their God or if their God ascribed no consequences to following his mandate, then free will would absolve God of the actions of his followers. However, since he ascribes a punishment/reward to the adherence of his mandate, he is responsible for the actions people take if they act under a rational interpretation of his will.
he gave us a choose between hundreds of paths. all of us not just Christians get to choose. is it his fault we choose wrong?
I'm simply using a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
Fundamentalist interpretations of scripture are the only way to approach this type of debate since it doesn't rely on any subjective conjecture. If we look at the Bible as it was written, you can't honestly argue that God did not give a mandate to pit humans against one another based on religion. God gave us conflicting scriptures which can't be rectified with one another and thus, war is a necessary outcome of following scripture as it was written. The command of War based on scriptures he himself inspired and coerced people into following seems to indicate a malicious nature.
If you can't dismiss a malicious God based on a fundamental interpretation of scripture, then you can't eliminate it as a possibility.
He doesn't say that though God's message is simple. Accept Jesus and u will go to heaven. what u r describing sounds more like extremist who shouldn't even come up in arguments
If I'm being coerced to act in a way I usually wouldn't, then yes. If you tell me I must kill someone from another village who believes in a different God or you will punish me for all eternity and I full heartedly believed you, then I'm being coerced and not acting freely.
The coercion to act in accordance to God's will makes him culpable for the actions taken by those being coerced.
if I said ur free to choose to do what u want and u do something stupid would it be my fault u chose to do that?
Watch the encounter by pure flix. it can explain it better than me. and other questions
That's not an explanation of how God is absolved of the consequences of his scriptures that's just a non-sequitur statement. Why does another's free will absolve God of the consequences of his actions?
Actually, the verses I quoted apply to individuals, all except for Deuteronomy 13:13 are related to individual offenses. You should read the verses first.
Secondly, ordering the destruction of villages, towns, or civilizations would seem to foster warfare which again, seems to be evidence that God wants different factions to go to war and his words actually demand war.
because it's better to choose a mistake than never have a choice in the first place.
no. what u cited for the most part was about city's filled with sin. God may be a god of love but also justice.
Again, how does the free will of humanity absolve God of providing doctrine which he knew would cause war for millenia?
Are you saying that mankind should have known better than to follow scripture?
free will man. would u rather be a puppet to be played with?
Since we're examining the evidence for the nature of God we have to take the supposed word of God literal. Otherwise it's completely stipulative. Christianity may function in a more stipulative space now, but it hasn't always, and you can't say that it always will.
My argument is simply that if we look at the evidence provided, consider the impact of scripture, and consider that God must have known the consequences of his cryptic scriptures, you can't eliminate the possibility of an evil/deceptive God.
Protestantism i would say is prone to misrepresentations since it it a purely scriptural, interpretative take on Christianity. There is no excuse for the violence as you suggest if there is tradition behind the Church.
What I mean for instance is that in Islam, the religion is purely scripture-based. If you divide it in two and one favors evil, then you have an irreconcilable conflict. If both can support violent and peaceful ideologies within the same text without misrepresentation, then you enter a gray area.
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Just to name the most obvious.
could u cite the ones ur talking about?
Are you telling me the old testament doesn't have verses in it that command the death of apostates, infidels, and blasphemers?
no. but I have never been told to kill anyone in the old testament. or new. only forgiveness and love
Are you really going to argue that Christians cannot find good reason in the Bible to obey the instructions given in the old testament?
idk on all the rest bit this has only happened in one event in the Bible.
Do I really have to quote all the Bible verses, the Tora verses, the Koran verses, etc... That order their followers to kill people? Are you really going to deny that scriptures contain instructions on when you should kill someone?
God doesn't tell u to kill anyone. He says to love.do u mean the city filled with sin?
Free will is a non-sequitur rebuttal.
How does the existence of free will absolve God of coercion to commit violence? Are we supposed to ignore scripture in order to be "good" ? Are we supposed to ignore the consequences of no acting in accordance to the scriptures?
If I tell you that you must perform a certain act or I will torture you for eternity, and you believe that I am capable of making good on that threat, and you act on that threat in a way that you normally wouldn't, then I'm in part to blame for your actions. So if God commands you to kill every member of a tribe who doesn't believe in him and if you don't, you will be dammed forever, he is to blame for you killing that tribe. If God at the same time commands the other tribe to kill your tribe under the same threat and your two tribes go to war because of those commands, then he is in part to blame. Free will does not absolve God of coercion to commit violence. If God simply said "kill the other tribe, but if you don't there are no negative or positive consequences for you rejecting my comman" then there would be no coercion and so you could absolve God somewhat. However, his commands are coupled with either positive or negative consequences and thus he coerced humanity into acting a certain way beyond their own free will.
I'm not arguing that because there is violence God is evil. I'm arguing that he commands violence and in fact demands it. The scriptures aren't a result of free will (unless you want to take the position that scripture is not divinely inspired). So you cannot absolve God of the content and the consequences of scriptural adherence.
not all cancers are environmental, and many are cause by old age.
we are living longer now than ever before in official history, and thus aging brings complications. however in the bible people lived close to 200 years without recorded deadly complications. he is still a suspect in the case of disease.
if God didn't love us then there wouldn't be redemption. also how is this God's fault? look to the roots of cancer and show me how they point to God.
If God loved us all then kids wouldn't get cancer
He is not a puppet master though. He does know the diff. sides but He gave us free will to do what we want instead of what He wants. something I would consider benevolent
I'm not really bringing up "the problem of evil". I don't think the existence of evil diminishes the idea of a benevolent God.
I'm arguing that the nature of the scriptures and the nature of "salvation" are not the nature of a benevolent being. Coercion is not a benevolent act, knowingly causing humans to act on false information is not an act of a benevolent being, providing scripture which knowingly cause irreconcilable hatred are also not the actions of a benevolent God. It's those acts that I believe justify the consideration of God being malicious rather than benevolent.
That's an interesting idea, however, you'd think that at the very least a loving God bestow scriptures that weren't divisive. You'd think that a good God would send instructions which were at least compatible with each other.
If we take a fundamentalsist approach to interpretation (this is the most sensible way of looking at the texts since it makes the least amount of assumptions) we see that the judeo-christian faiths are all at odds with each other and all other religions. We can also see that violence is not just permitted, but indeed commanded against "the other". Those aren't interpretive issues, those are issues with the text. You have to do some "creative reading" to deny the fact that the scriptures dictate violence.
The scriptures also only offer salvation through coercion. The threat of eternal damnation for not believing is just that, coercion. That's not a benevolent virtue.
exactly.tryung to mix things up. thought u all might like the challenge.
not really. more about if He loves u.
this argument is more based on if there is a God then he loves all not wether there is or not. also it's fine u think that He still loves u.
that depends on if u believe that He gave u free will. would we truly have free will if He comes and fixes everything?
each have a different meaning sometimes to different people.idk on other religions but Jesus said to love all. not to hurt them.
would u prefer to be forced by his side and forced to praise Him for eternity? hell is a place without God. heaven is where u can see God (till Revelations happens) so tell me which do u prefer slave or man?
to play a bit of Devils advocate, according to the bahai faith God sends a different message to people depending on what message they need.
for example, before Judaism people needed law and structure, so he sent the law filled old testament to give them that. during the roman era, people needed to learn to love and forgive, so he sent jesus and the new testament. and in similar manner they seek to unite the purpose for all the different religions including Hinduism, shinto, etc.
one reason that may be more logical than your pitting humanity against each other view is that most religions as we know them today did not come into existence at the same time, as you would expect if God was simply trying to create sides (assuming understanding of his concept of time.)
how we twist the message afterwards is up to us, we do have free will, and please note than one of the least inclusive religions historically (christianity) has the most inclusive message (love thy neighbor.)
That's not really the topic though. There are already tons of God vs no-God debates on this app. We don't need to devolve this one into just another one of those threads. Since this is a topic about the nature of God it seems implied that God's existence is presumed. You can't really have a discussion about the nature of God without either proving it's existence or assuming it. Since the first has been tried in so many debates before, if there is going to be a thread about the nature of God, then we have to go with an assumption of God.
I agree with you in terms of there not actually being a God, but it's really not relevant to this debate I think.
there aint no god.
This claims necessarily rests on the assumption of a benevolent God. Even Descartes couldn't really solve the problem of a deceitful God in his "meditations on first philosophy". He tried and failed at proving a benevolent God as being the only possible nature of God.
On a side note, Descartes attempts at ruling out a deceptive/evil God are very interesting and its a great read for any theist who wants to see an example of how to avoid circular reasoning (I.e. Using the Bible) to describe the nature of God.
I'll go on to argue that if we assume God exists (for the sake of this debate I won't argue that point since it's not really the topic), we have more evidence that God is deceitful/evil than we do the opposite. If we ignore the described nature of God in the Bible/koran/Tora/etc... as a source of establishing God's true nature (we must ignore scripture since we can't trust it unless we first prove a benevolent God), we are left with metaphysical arguments about the nature of God and real world evidence about the nature of God. For the sake of the argument I will assume that all scripture holds equal weight and that there is a chance that all of them were indeed inspired by "God".
The fact that we have mutually exclusive religions, some of which command proselytizing; which are all based on the same "god" and are necessarily at odds with each other would seem to suggest a God who pits humans against each other with conflicting ideologies. This doesn't seem like the actions of a benevolent being. A unified scripture given to various cultures, with only cultural variances which does not pit us against each other would seem to be the logical choice for a benevolent God to bestow upon us his will.
Cryptic scriptures which are open to interpretation and often contain horrendous instructions on how to deal with the "other faiths" also seem to suggest a God who toys with humanity.
The seemingly narcissistic requirements of exclusive faith to one version of the scriptures (all of which are equally filled with inconsistencies, contradiction, and are unverifiable) enforced through fear of eternal damnation also doesn't seem like the actions of a benevolent God.