OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

"This is a game for adults. Grown children who insist on being insulted by everything should feel free not to play."

Fixed that for you. :) As a politically-incorrect conservative, I often find that liberals and secularists lead the way when it comes to being offended by everything. But let's play it safe and leave the reference open to possibility. If you're easily offended -- whatever the cause of your offense -- Dominions 3 is probably not the game for you.

Yes, I'm an evangelical Christian. You'd probably call me a fundamentalist, although that term is often misused. Wikipedia has a pretty good article about Christian fundamentalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

As controversial as Christian fundamentalism has become, our actual beliefs are very simple. Basically, we believe the same things that Christians have believed for 2000 years. We believe that the Bible is true, and Jesus is who He claimed to be. Simple enough.

Gregstrom nailed it back in July:
I agree completely. Anyone who hates "in the name of Christ" is not doing it because Jesus told him to hate, but is actually misusing our Lord to cover for his own evil. Haters are haters, no matter what their excuses might be....

If anyone's curious, the path to playing Dominions 3 as a Christian is also very simple. I just remind myself that it's a game, not reality. :angel

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

[quote=SlipperyJim;639821]Exactly :)

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I really don't see the link between animal liberation and hatred/violence ^_^ Quite the opposite btw. And about secularists being much more easily offended than many religious people, I think you're totally wrong - both historically and in current society. But I think we're going faaaar off topic. :)

Before starting to answer, I would like to say that I'm agnostic and I respect everyone's belief until it becomes dangerous for my, or other's people, freedom and happiness and life. So I got no prejudice at all against any religion, I've got many friends having lots of different beliefs/disbeliefs so I'm not attacking your point from an hate-mongering point of view. Actually, I'm not attacking you at all, just reading an historical book for me, an Holy Book for you.

Said that, I ask you to just read, just for the love of talking, debating and learning from each other:

Jesus says (and I'm just quoting):

"If anyone comes to me and does not HATE his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE." [Luke, 14:26]

"I tell you that to EVERYONE WHO HAS, MORE WILL BE GIVEN, but as for THE ONE WHO HAS NOTHING, EVEN WHAT HE HAS WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. But those enemies of mine who DID NOT WANT ME TO BE KING OVER THEM - BRING THEM HERE AND KILL THEM IN FRONT OF ME." [Luke 19:26-27]

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I DID NOT COME TO BRING PEACE, BUT A SWORD. FOR I HAVE COME TO TURN A MAN AGAINS HIS FATHER, A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, A DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW, A MAN'S ENEMIES will be THE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD." [Matthew 10:34-36]

This of course, not to go into the Old Testament, as you were talking just about Jesus.

If you think I'm decontestualizing or exploiting these passages, feel free of course to read the entire chapter.

Peace

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

No problem with all that. This is why believe both OT,NT and the third newbie, the Quran are just made up by religious leaders to hypnotize the masses.

http://www.luciferianliberationfront.org/arss_1.html

A parody chick tract with direct quotes from the Bible. Never thought Moses would capture 32000 virgins and SACRIFICE 32 of them as a burnt offering. Burn 32 virgins alive. Moshe.

Perhaps Gath's blood magic is a subtle hint to this...

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Wow, they're quite surprising quotes.

In Oxford, the animal rights protesters have decided that any student or member of staff at the university is a valid target for violent protests. This includes English students and what have you. Quite apart from the unnerving threat of violence, every Thursday afternoon we have to endure loud protests outside our windows, which cause huge distraction. I'm okay with it really, but my two officemates basically can't work. We're doing computational work to better understand viruses in the theoretical chemistry deparment - about as benevolent and animal-friendly as you could hope for really. But the animal protesters can be heard around much of the science area.

Frankly, they upset me. I think it's excellent that people stand up for the rights of animals. But I'm not sure these people have really thought it through, and in particular I find their untargeted threats of violence quite despicable.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Not to dispute you on the animal rights protesters, I have no idea what's been happening in Oxford, but what type of violent protests are we talking about? How many people have been killed? How many bombs?

I mean, if we're talking about "similar hatred and violence" to religion? How many animal liberation wars have been fought?

Nationalism, I'll be quite happy to concede to the original poster. It's all really just different ways for people to choose sides and pretend they're better than those other people so they can take their stuff. (Or for demagogues to convince them to gain a following.)

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Also, that nationalism is a prerogative of "secular world", sorry to say but it's just absolutely storically untrue.

Surely there were a lot of non-religious dispotic nationalist governments which committed lots of atrocities (Russia, Cambodia).

But also that two of the most terrible nationalist dictatorships of modern times, the German nazi one and the Italian fascist one (one of the first acts of Mussolini was the Patti Lateranensi, to make the Christian Catholic the religion of state), were both ruled by proven religious Duces who actually claimed many times to be acting on God's will.

This of couse proves, as SlipperyJim says, that if one wants to commit evil it can do it using religion too -it would be very false to claim Hitler and Mussolini did their crimes BECAUSE they were religious, as it is false to say so about STALIN and POL POT doing them BECAUSE they were atheists-, but it even disproves the claim that nationalism is something secular. At all.

Again, peace :) (sounds ridiculous maybe, but it's my sincere wish and also my best try not to seem a satanic jerk every time I debate on someone's religion :D )

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I know. Many people don't actually know the religious book, it's ok of course, but what surprises me are religious people which don't know what they really believe in.
Don't misunderstand me! I talk with many people about their religion, they say they believe in the Bible and for me it is really no problem, far from being a problem, let's be friends ;) maybe 75% of my friends are catholic btw

But when someone says that the Bible is the book of the Religion of Love, and that if I'm not a believer I can't have morality, sorry, hey, stop, I am a blood and bone marrow donor without expecting any Heaven for this, but I've also got 3 or 4 pages of quotes of the bible which actively encourage, and sometimes COMMAND by the word of god, killing of dissidents, genocide of women and babies, lapidation, enslavement of civilians, pedophilia. Of course I'm not saying that Christian people do that, OF COURSE NOT :D but don't come and attack me on the basis of a book you don't even know.

Sorry for the rant, we are just on the topic, again I'm not really saying ppl should stop believing, believe whatever you want if it makes you feel good and in peace with the others ;)

@ llamabeast: of course, not talking about you, I don't even know what do you believe in ^_^ I just took the input from your words

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

It's OK as long as they don't worship the OT God. It is like Khorne! And shed that "I don't impose my faith,but..." face, any logical,rational human being would blanch at these verses...

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

You can think that, and I think too that a perfect, all-knowing, all-believing God would not write verses so full of hate.

But I just think it's not right to claim I'm smarter than the millions (billions?) of Jews and Christians around the world, because I'm not of course.

I just hope they read their holy books with attention, and decide if it's right to follow what the religious leaders say them to do on the basis of those texts, and if they believe that the perfect God that they are worship is supposed to have written or directly inspired such things.

Peace (sorry, it's an habit now :D)

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

All across America, Christianity is being challenged in the courts on a daily basis. Michael Newdow and his quixotic challenges against the Pledge of Allegiance come to mind. (And the Pledge isn't even specifically Christian, just generally theist.) Secularists sue to prevent schoolkids from praying. Teachers confiscate Bibles. Religious monuments are constantly under legal threat.

The town of Las Cruces, NM (Spanish for "The Crosses") was sued because the town logo has three crosses on it. Thankfully, the lawsuit has been dismissed, although the plaintiffs may attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court:
http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_10480497

Despite our whining, American Christians actually have it easy. We just have to put up with lawsuits and social pressure. Christians in other countries are literally in danger of being killed for their faith. See The Voice of the Martyrs for more details about anti-Christian persecution around the globe.

Historically, religious believers have done most of the persecuting. That's shameful, but also true. However, secularists have turned the tables these days, and faith is in the crosshairs.

Sure, understood. I don't think you hate me. (You don't even know me!) It's much more likely that you misunderstand the message of Christ. So let's talk about it.

When interpreting Scripture, context is key. In Luke 14, Jesus was telling His followers about the cost of being a disciple. He wanted to make it very clear to them that His demands were absolute. There should be no possibility of divided loyalties, because Jesus must be the Lord of your life. Reading the whole chapter makes this point quite clear.

Basically, Christ's message here is not that we have to literally hate our families. Rather, His message is that we must love Him so much that we are willing to sacrifice anything (or anyone) for Him.

It's also instructive to note that the overall message of the Bible is extremely pro-family. Parents are told to love our children. Children are told to love and obey their parents. Husbands and wives are instructed to love each other so completely that they become "one flesh" [Genesis 2:24]. One of the last acts Jesus performed before He died on the Cross was to make sure that His mother would have someone to care for her [John 19:25-27]. When taken in context, the idea that Jesus wants us to hate our families is plainly false.

This quote is taken out of context. Jesus was telling a parable in Luke 19, the Parable of the Ten Minas. Those words you quoted are spoken by Jesus, but they're actually the words of the king in the parable.

As with the quote from Luke 14, Jesus is trying to warn His followers about the high cost of following Him. The Gospel divides people based on belief. Those who believe Jesus are fundamentally different from those who do not believe. Our priorities are different. Our worldview is different. Our lives are different. When Jesus is Lord, everything changes.

I have experienced the truth of Jesus's warning in my own life. My parents and I are divided on the Gospel. We maintain a cordial relationship as best we can, but our efforts aren't always successful. You might as well ask a Windows user and a Linux fan to share the same PC. :rolleyes:

By the way, please don't make the mistake of thinking that Christians ignore the Old Testament. Ignoring the Old Testament is just modern-day Marcionism. The introduction to John's Gospel makes it crystal-clear: Jesus is the Word of God. Therefore, we have to take the whole Word if we accept Jesus as Lord. Ignoring the Hebrew Scriptures won't do.

That said, it is also important to understand that Christians interpret the Old Testament in the light of Jesus. He is the "lens" through which we read the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus is the culmination of the Jewish rituals of sacrifice, the perfect High Priest, and the fulfillment of the Mosaic law. So we don't ignore the Hebrew Scriptures, but we do understand them in a very different way from most Jews.

Shalom. :)

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Ok. Care to read the comic ink I gave you then? Old Testament god is f***ing scary.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I'm happy to answer questions about my faith, but I'm not going to read comics by some organization called the Luciferian Liberation Front. Life is too short to spend on such pastimes....

That said, if you have a serious question, I'll do my best to answer it. In answer to your claim that "Old Testament god is f***ing scary," I can only respond that you have underestimated the situation. God can be very scary, even in the New Testament. Read some apocalyptic prophecies.... :eek:

God is perfectly holy. Humans are not. An imperfect creature standing in the presence of pure holiness should be scared. It's the logical reaction.

God is also perfectly loving. That's why He sent His Son to save us. By accepting Christ's sacrifice, we can be cleansed of our sins. God makes us holy, and He adopts us as His children. When we are in Christ, we have nothing to fear anymore.

Think about a speed trap on the highway. When you see the patrol car, how do you respond? If you've been driving a bit too fast, you probably experience an adrenaline surge. If you were really speeding, you're probably terrified. Guilt is afraid of justice. But if you weren't speeding, then you have nothing to fear. You notice the officer, but you aren't worried.

The stakes are higher with God than with any highway patrolman.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

The bible is pro family????

chuckle...

That's rich, verily.

Prostituting ones daughters, sacrificing ones sons, god killing all first borns, ...

Yes, how pro family that is.

The bible is not pro family in the slightest, it is pro god. It is also full of contradictions and misleading statements which can be interpreted in any number of ways, and often are for individuals own uses or personal bents. I'm sure this is neither new nor interesting to any christians though, just as christians are not new or interesting to most agnostics.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Despite the Christians "whining", most of those are not attempts to persecute Christians, but to keep non-Christians or non-theists from being required to fund or participate in Christian ritual. No one wants to prevent kids from praying in school. The suits have largely been against organized school/government sponsored prayers. The religious monuments under threat are ones on government land or funded by the taxpayers. I don't know about teachers taking away Bibles, but a quick Google pulls up nothing reputable. Perhaps under the same conditions they'd take away any non school books? Disruption, reading during class etc?

And as an occasional atheist, I do find it a little annoying to pledge "under God". It's easiest to understand with a little substitution. How would you feel if you (or your child) had to repeat "under Allah" or to be as generic "under the Goddess"?
And that time honored pledge that it's such a horror to even consider changing? The "under God" part dates only to the 50s. It was added to distinguish us from the godless commies.

It's always amused me that Christians get to play the victim card in the US where they are in so many ways so dominant. Far more societal and political influence than almost anywhere else in the developed world, but anytime they can't get the government to force their beliefs on the rest of us, someone will cry "persecution"


Even in the rest of the world, most of the persecution of Christians is done by other religions. (And there is plenty of persecution of other religions by Christians as well.) The largest exception would be the remaining Communist regimes, particularly China, where they'll persecute anyone who doesn't toe the party line anyway. Religions are only one target.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I think it is wrong for people to pick out little qoutes to make judgements, being totally conservative here, the bible was written by several people and their scriptures were all written at different times, even the 4 gospels were written with a 30/40 year gap between each one and as such each chapter of the bible will have the individual ideas of a single individual and is insufficient in my opinion to lift an entire faith but instead the fundamentals of the entire collection of scriptures should just be followed.

i myself am a catholic but i feel sometimes it is unsafe to believe little more than there is a god and that i should live a good, honest life wether or not there is a god.

also to clarify i believe most christians take the old testament to be little more than a fable, the fundamental values are accepted but the stories aren't necesarrily taken literally as they are written in the bible.

for instance moses didn't make miracles in my opinion, it was simply scientific knowledge, everyone who has made the effort to read the bible should know that with most of moses miracles the pharoahs advisors recreated them on a smaller scale, explaining to pharoah that moses was a fake and telling him not to release the isrealites. A good example would be the parting of the sea, moses didn't really part the sea and it was more of a large inland lake than an ocean, the lake was and i believe still is connected to a tidal river and so the water level would drop with the tides revealing a landbridge, the israelites would cross and the egyptians would be cut off from them completely when the tides rose.

off course this is only an educated guess on my part but i hope it may clear some things up.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

So you just pick what you want to take literally and what you don't?

And you accept that even though there are more gospels than what are included in the bible that the others are not important/relevant to the religion?

Look, I have nothing against christians (or any religion), but it amuses me the leaps of logic many people make in trying to make their decision to believe in fairy tales palatable to themselves.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I might suggest that saying you have nothing against the religious is a lot more convincing when you don't then patronisingly belittle them for illogicality and believing fairy tales.

I'm an atheist too for the record. But I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, some are smarter than me and many of their detractors, and I think all deserve better than casual mockery.

* * *

I think many atheists are a little disingenuous with "Christians pick and choose" arguments. The Bible is and always was considered a book that works on many levels. Biblical literalism - much of what causes problems in the modern world in my view - was popularised by elements of Protestantism 1500 years after Christ. Even today it is only prevalent in Protestants, and a minority at that, albeit a minority with plenty of money and will to make a disproportionately big noise about their beliefs.

Someone (Slippery Jim?) said that Jesus is the lens through which the Bible should be read. This reflects an important ideal that has existed in Christianity since its earliest day recognised by earliest Christian thinkers like Origen or St. Augustine: that not every last bit of the Bible, especially the O.T., should be carried out to the letter, or is an absolute word of God. Much of it allegorical, inaccurate interpretations by men with primitive understanding, simple historical record or whatever else.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I think Nikelaos is saying he doesn't take it literally. Which is a fine way to approach it, there's a lot of wisdom in the Bible.
And with someone who took that approach I wouldn't "pick out little quotes to make judgements". That's reserved for those who claim to believe the whole thing it divinely inspired word for word, all literally true. Which is, I agree, a minority of Christians. Just usually the loudest ones.
(Especially in America.)

I particularly like those who claim they simply believe the literal meaning of the text, needing no interpretation, then proceed to explain what the verse means.

I am also reminded of the Gandhi quote: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
So many, and so many of the loudest voices, claim to be Christian, but I see very little of Christ in their behavior.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I'm not an atheist, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You can take my statements at face value though.

And I don't have a problem with people who believe in fairy tales either, hell my kids love them ;)

I don't think it's casual mockery either when people will say that that bible contains the 'word of god' but then decide they somehow get to chose which of words he actually apparently meant to be taken literally.

So either you accept that the bible is a big fairy tale and don't chose to base an otherwise completely arbitrary belief system off of it, or you stick up for a more literal interpretation of *all* of it. Really the distinction for most christians is between the old and new testament anyway. And there are arguments out there for why the old shouldn't be taken literally, but that the new should be. I think those arguments fail though, so that's why I take the stance I take.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

My friend, the public school of a lay state is a place to /Learn/. I don't say it, it's in the laws of the state you accepted to live in. School is a place to learn maths, english, geography and science. Not Creationism, which is one religious, non-scientific thing. Not praying, because there are places, not of the state, for doing this as a freedom the state consider innate into you and nobody can remove. And not having Bible, because in a school a Bible is just out of place, as it would be everything else not related to teaching to children (from a Superman comic book to Playboy :D sorry, joking)

Auch, excuse me but I think no one, NO ONE, could ask to an healthy, sane, person, to sacrifice (I know of course in a non literal way) the people he loves the most in his life, daughters, wives, parents, to a person claiming (you said it) to be God, a person never appeared to me, lived (if lived) 2000 years ago. Not even if they believe in something else than him.

True, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear it was a Parable. But you should go further talking. The parable is something Jesus uses in that occasion to talk about the Reign of God, as it is said in that paragraph. The king is God, clearly, without any need of interpretation. You have read the chapter. "Kill whoever doesn't accept me", in the mouth of Jesus - who IS God himself - doesn't sound any better thinking at it as a parable and "not literal".

Well, maybe that is my main problem with the whole thing. Religion (not only yours) divides people (families! The Bible itself says so) of today's complex and ever-changing world, on world views that are at the best, what? 2000 years old.
You may say they are still valid. I read the Old Testament, or the Quran and I say no, the world is changed, the world MUST CONTINUE CHANGING to go far from these world views of DIVISION and HATRED, not to talk about lapidation and mass murder. Those words cannot have been inspired by a perfect and loving god for me. There must be a mistake, those are the words of a tyrant of cavemen. I just can't accept it.

Please, tell me how the light of Jesus can make you understand in a (as rational as possible) way, this (almost random quote):

"Now KILL ALL THE BOYS AMONG THE LITTLE ONES. And KILL EVERY WOMAN WHO AS SLEPT WITH A MAN, but SAVE FOR YOURSELF every GIRL OF YOUNG AGE who has never slept with a man." [Numbers 31:17-18]

It is Moses (one of the greater prophets of your religion) which says in the God-inspired Bible what to do to the prisoners of a war against a city, a war which is THE VENGEANCE OF GOD, Numbers 31:3
You talk about the lens of Jesus, my friend, but I fear no lens can let me accept those fearful, full of hate words, in the mouth of a God someone believes in. (Note, the WORDS, not the BELIEVER himself)

Still, of course, nothing against you. A hug and my best wishes. ;)

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

For some reason it wanted to glitch and note show Tifone's original quote from Luke 14. I gave up trying to get it into this reply. :p Anyway, I find this part particularly interesting, because it's the same sort of indoctrination that is embedded into the US Special Forces, and CIA. Only there they replace Jesus with America. The premise is still the same, to convince someone to embrace something so entirely with their being, that should they be told that their own brother or mother is a threat, that they will do what has to be done to protect the ideological focal point.


This is the essential premise that must be laid down before leaders can develop a militant "us vs them" mentality. You call non-believers "fundamentally different", but between the two quotes provided here, and your rationale to support them, you mean that non-believers are "inferior". Beyond that, non-believers are not just inferior, but expendable, and perhaps worthy of direct and violent retribution for their disbelieving ways. To me it seems that this is a good example of scripture that you can interpret to your heart's delight, you can dress it up and sugar coat it all you want - and it's still just wrong, and no matter how you try to bury it, it is filled with malice and dischord.


But the bible itself states that it is the word of god. It seems illogical to assume that an essentially infallible being would deposit its teachings into people who were so horribly flawed that they would contradict eachother, and make such horrible and glaring errors as are seen. Hence, the basic disagreement between logic and faith ensues.


And again, it seems terribly illogical to claim that part of a religious scripture is directly literal, while another part is figurative. I find it amusing that when religious believers are confronted on certain points, they argue that the "word of god" must be taken literally word for word. Confronted on other points, and they will figuratively construe the message in whatever convoluted way necessary to support their own point of view. It is worth noting that this particular point of view may not mesh with many other factions of the religion, who will interpret that particular portion of the bible in a different way.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Oh and I'm glad that this thread picked back up. 8 )

Let's just try to keep things civil please, so the discourse can continue. As the most level-headed faithful whom I have met have claimed to only want to help me and improve my life, it is the same that I give in return. Personally I believe that there is only one spiritual destination, and that no religion can actually take you all the way there. They are human constructs (most of them quite old, as well), and therefore intrinsically flawed. It is the individual, the human who must transcend beyond the confusion and lies - grasping the seed of truth that is within their faith, and letting it grow within themselves without the interference of of the garbled rantings of barbaric and unwashed madmen from the past.

<3

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

O RLY? The comic directly quoted from the OT, I remember stating that. Nice dodge. Life is never short not to read even the rival's apologetics(correct If I wrongly used it)

Let me read it for you then! As the Jews exited Egypt, they assaulted the promised land to cleanse it of other faiths. It speaks of 32000 virgins captured, 32 of hem SACRIFICED to God WHILE BURNED ALIVE(stop dodging this!), and the rest given as slave wives!

So stop defending the Abrahamic faiths. God ordered these. That equals a "sick feck".

You Christian folk are all the same. You always dodge a question, miss the point, find a way to denigrate the rival argumentator (Luciferian liberation front is an atheist website, but it is named Luciferian! OHNOES!), or entirely try to lead away from the point.

Well, my final conclusion is that God is a 5 year old fat kid throwing a hissy fit against a creaton that gives him the finger because he is just that. Noah's flood itself is stolen from Gilgamesh, and is logically contradicting as a perfect God simply can disintegrate those hated in an instant, and never need a pair of animals to repopulate the world. Babies drowned too, animals drowned too, children drowned as well. A perfect entity CANNOT make this. End of discusion.

So your God is either a mad raving monster or a holy entity that has LIMITED powers. Take your pick.

Also, if such a thing is perfectly holy, I am the anti-Christ, or will definitely follow him should all this Bronze Age babble is right, and he will rise.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Er, as a moderator I'm feeling a little nervous here. This thread is on the very edge of disaster.

JaghataiKhan, if you got banned from the Mount&Blade forums for being offensive in your vehement assaults on religion, please try to avoid repeating that here.

In any case, I am moving this to the Bar&Grill, as it has nothing to do with Dom3.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

This site is a collection of saying from a famed (at the time) late 19th century American athiest.

Naturally, I concur with this.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/.../ingersoll.htm

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

For the sake of completeness, this was split from here.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

/Cough
Was it Russia or Cambodia that dropped nuclear bombs on civilians?... Or maybe they started Opium Wars after Chinese government tried to protect its citizens against drug dealers?..
/cough
Lets keep to the topic, please, which is religion. :)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Mainstream interpretation of the Bible, even since the earliest Christian theologians, has never been that it is entirely literal.

Even if the Bible is the word of God, it does not mean it has to be literal truth. It is logically consistent to say that although God is perfect, any communication he could render to humans must be interpreted by imperfect human understanding. (That argument was originally based on Platonic philosophy, although it's also compatible into one of the major strands of postmodern philosophy.)

The failing with literal interpretation was pointed out over 1500 years ago by Christian theologians. They noticed their understanding was far greater than the primitives who wrote the early Bible and had even less chance of comprehending the whole truth. As human knowledge grows, Christians need to consider whether tracts of the Bible are actually loose framework, grossly simplified versions of events, or outright allegory.

For Christians to back total literal interpretation is to put them at odds with the intellectual background of their own religion. For atheists to do it (assuming they aren't countering a literalist), it's nothing but setting up a straw man.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I suspect atheists often assume the literalist position because many of the most extreme and the most vocal Christians are literalists, especially in the US and many places on the net.

I know that most Christians aren't literalists, but most of the ones I worry about are.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

True. And the "part literal, part allegory" approach on the other hand provides all sorts of ammunition against a lot of things that even mainstream Christianity accepts as a matter of course. It comes to the "So, which is it?" question and sooner or later the religious arguments start contradicting themselves.

It's hard to give any respect to something that is so inconsistent and self-contradictory. Most of the good stuff associated with Christianity is not actually sourced in the Bible per se, but is universal to most ethical systems that aim to improve the lot of people. The Golden Rule being one of those.

Another problem Christianity has in the eyes of non-believers is refusal of moderates to outright condemn the whackjob fringe, thus silently enabling them to claim more supporters for their position than there really are. If someone on my side were sabotaging constructive efforts the same way they are, I'd let them have it with both barrels. And as long as the other side doesn't return the favor, I won't bother making any distinctions when talking about them as a group. If someone has a problem with it, they can speak up later. Not that the earlier silence will get a lot of sympathy.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

The problem is people who take the words of the bible literally. As for me, I know that there are chapters in the bible that I don't accept as valid, same as I don't take what's in the Qur'an as valid information. Some parts in the bible are downright crazy. I acknowledge a lot of things in the old testament and since I'm a Protestant I accept what's in the evangelists books, but I don't acknowledge some of the shorter and crazier chapters of the bible. That is from other authors, and what they wrote is their own view on things.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

So. Many. Responses! I'm going to skip over the political stuff, because politics is being talked to death these days....

If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Here's the main point: God must be first for those who claim to believe in Him. He gave us His life. We must give Him our lives.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad. Under the circumstances, I would be a poor son indeed if I stood to the side and allowed my parents to go to Hell without making every effort to prevent it. I must be a witness to them. However, my witnessing will cause division between us, at least in the short term.

So what should I do? Should I stop witnessing to preserve short-term peace, while knowing that the long-term effects will be horrible beyond belief? Or should I risk some short-term conflict in order to influence my parents toward salvation?

Real-world analogy: If your parents were smoking six packs of cigarettes every day, would you try to get them to quit? What if your parents were already showing signs of poor health -- lung cancer, emphysema, asthma -- would that encourage you toward greater efforts on their behalf? But trying to get them to quit smoking will be tense! They might resent you for interfering in their lives. What now?

The dilemma is that I cannot witness to them if I allow our relationship to become completely estranged. Furthermore, the Bible tells me very clearly that I must honor my parents. So I must walk a middle ground. I try to maintain a cordial relationship with my parents (including frequent contact with my kids, their grandkids), but I also maintain my witness. It's not easy, but few worthwhile things are easy.

When you carry the parable into the Kingdom of God -- which is the valid interpretation -- you also pick up some other context. The new factor to consider is grace. God doesn't want you to perish. He wants to save you. In fact, He wants to save you so badly that He sent His Son to die for you.

He has also taken every step to make sure that you know the stakes. He has given us His Word. He has ordered His followers to tell you about Him. You cannot claim ignorance. In fact, since you seem to know more about Scripture than many believers, you especially cannot claim ignorance. :)

Given all of that, what then should God do with an unbeliever at the final judgment? Salvation can only be found in God. In other words, the only way to save you is to join you to Himself. Do you want Him to do that against your will? What kind of loving God would bind people to Himself for all eternity without their consent? That's not love, it's slavery. So He lets you go to destruction. He doesn't enjoy it -- and neither should His followers -- but there's no other way. You've chosen to separate yourself from God, so He honors your choice.

Sadly, separation from God is not the neverending party that unbelievers want to believe. :(

A divided world was never part of God's plan. He created humanity to live in unity with Him and each other. But we screwed it up. When the Bible speaks about division and hatred, those aren't good things. Division and hatred are the consequences of human sin. The Bible is just being honest about them.

Even when the Bible commands division or hatred (for example, the conquest of the Promised Land), it's a reaction to sin. God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites because of the Caananites' appalling sins. He also wanted to protect the Israelites -- His chosen people -- from being led astray. Unfortunately, His people didn't obey Him as well as they should have, so they were led astray, and the consequences were disastrous.

The pagan natives of the Promised Land were a very wicked people. The conquest of Israel was so thorough that we don't know too much about them, but we do know that they practiced human sacrifice. And that children were among the sacrifices. The full extent of their iniquities have been lost to history, but whatever they had done, it was so bad that God decided they couldn't be redeemed. They were too wicked to save. Just as a surgeon cuts out a tumor to heal a person, sometimes God destroys sin rather than allow it to spread.

Again, human sin was not part of God's original plan for us. And when He returns, we won't have to worry about it anymore. The lion will lie down with the lamb, and all suffering will be no more than a bad memory.

Same here. :)

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I said we were fundamentally different, and that's what I meant. What have I said that would lead you to believe that I meant "inferior"?

Unbelievers are not inferior to believers, and no Christian should claim so. Jesus died to save the whole world, not just a chosen few. Each human being is worth the life of God's own Son. That's a lot of value....

In a sense, unbelievers may be worth even more than believers. If I die today, I'm going to heaven. If an unbeliever dies without accepting Christ, he goes ... somewhere else. Therefore, an unbeliever's earthly life is (in a sense) more important than mine, because it's the only chance he has.

That's why Marcionism was rightly condemned as heresy. If God is God, then we must take His entire Word. We must interpret it correctly, but we must accept it. Picking apart the Bible will only lead a person astray. We can see the clear danger of picking apart the Scriptures in Christ's warning to the church of Laodicea:
In one sense, you're mistaken. But in another sense, you're very correct.

It is a mistake to conclude that one cannot believe in the truth of Scripture without taking it literally word-for-word. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken word-for-word. Scripture contains history, biography, poetry, and prophecy. Some of those events (such as Jesus's biographies, AKA the Gospels) are clearly meant to be understood as the literal truth. Other passages of Scripture are poetic, and they must be understood as metaphor. Much of Scripture works on multiple levels. The Song of Solomon is a good example of beautiful (erotic!) poetry that praises married love between a man and a woman, while it also gives us an analogy for the relationship between God and His church.

On the other hand, you're very correct to spot that there are some logical inconsistencies in Christians who want to dismiss the Old Testament as a mere fairy tale. Christ came to earth as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. We cannot dimiss those prophecies without dismissing Christ Himself. The miracles in the Old Testament also point to Christ. If we dismiss those miracles, how can we maintain any consistency in our belief about Jesus?

For example, the parting of the Red Sea is frequently dismissed as a fable, even by modern Christians. But God's power over the elements is an integral part of His divinity. He made the waters, so He can certainly order them to part. Power over the elements was part of how Christ proved His own divinity, when He calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee. More importantly, the parting of the Red Sea (and the entire Exodus) is a foreshadowing of how Christ saved us from sin. Just as the power of God created a passage in the Red Sea, so the power of God through Christ created a passage through sin and death.

There's another point to consider. The crowning miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, the entire faith falls apart. It seems to me that raising a dead man back to life is at least as big a "trick" as parting the sea. So why would I believe in the Resurrection, yet reject the rest of the miracles? If the parting of the Red Sea is too improbable for me to believe, then the Resurrection is also going to be a problem....

Finally, there's the credibility of God's Word, which comes back to the credibility of God Himself. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken literally, but there is no sign that Exodus is meant to be understood in any other way. It's not poetry. It's not prophecy. Clearly, it's meant to be a literal history. If we don't believe it as such, then we're challenging God's honesty.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Belated apologies for dragging the thread even further off-topic than it already was.... :o

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

(Much snipped to address one point.)
Witnessing to your parents is, as you suggest, a matter between you and them. But this very argument, that those who do not believe in Jesus as Lord will suffer for eternity has been used to justify so much horror throughout history, that I simply cannot accept it even in a mild form. The Inquisition, forcible conversion of other cultures, etc, etc. All for their own good, since nothing we do to them can compare with Hell. Even if these savages won't convert we can take their children and teach them God's Word.

I assume you wouldn't approve of this, but really why not? Once you assume an eternity of suffering, how is it not good to try to spare people that by any means necessary.



And to comment briefly on a few other points:
If God is all-powerful, how can an entire culture be beyond redemption? (And that's assuming the historical accuracy of a document written well after the fact by the victors, who might have some small motivation for making their enemies look worse.)

And why was the sacrifice of Jesus necessary at all? It seems a particularly messy way to bring about salvation. It makes perfect sense viewed through the culture of the time and place. The redemption through sacrifice concept makes sense in old Middle Eastern culture/theology, but not in the context of an all-powerful, all-loving god.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

We need to draw a very careful distinction between Truth and literalism. Fundamentalist Christians like me believe the Bible to be true. We believe that Scripture is the infallible and inspired Word of God. What does that mean?

"Infallible" means that the Word is never wrong on any subject that it addresses. The doctrine of infallibility does not claim that Scripture contains all knowledge. I work in IT, and I can tell you that Scripture is remarkably short on advice for properly configuring a virtual datacenter. ;) However, when Scripture speaks on a subject, it is always correct.

The doctrine of infallibility also does not require us to always interpret Scripture in a literal, word-for-word sense. Some parts of Scripture are poetry, some are prophecy, and some are literal. We have to understand what we're reading. Of course, now we have the problem of determining which is which. Is the creation account from Genesis poetry or literal history? Christians are divided on this question. Personally, I'm undecided, but I'm leaning toward literal history.

A good rule of thumb for interpreting the Bible is: When the Word makes plain sense, seek no other sense. In other words, if the text makes sense from a literal view, then that's probably how it was meant to be understood. We shouldn't reach for a poetical or metaphorical understanding unless the plain meaning of the words can't possibly make sense....

"Inspired" simply means that the Bible came from God. Yes, it was written by human hands, but those people were all guided by God's Holy Spirit. In other words, the Bible has only one Author, but He gave a lot of dictation. ;)

With those points in mind, I will refer you back to Agema's comment. Literal understanding of the Bible simply doesn't work, and Christians have known that for many years. I suspect that you actually don't know too many literalists. I am a member of a fundamentalist Christian church, and I don't know any literalists.

Most of the people who believe in a literal understanding of the Bible are straw men. Actual Christians -- including the fundamentalists -- know that literalism is both self-defeating and unnecessary to proclaim God's Word as truth.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Conversion by force doesn't work. Jesus wants you to follow Him freely. He wants your heart, not merely your surface obedience. For example, see Amos 5.

If God was only interested in forced obedience, He would take it. Yet He has given us free will. If God Himself won't take away your free will, what right would I have to do the same thing?

The Inqusition and other examples of forced conversion are among the shames of the Church. We elevated ourselves above our stature and claimed a privilege that not even God Himself has claimed. God's Word tells us to be faithful witnesses. That's our mandate, and no more than that.

I don't know why the original inhabitants of the Promised Land were beyond redemption. I can hazard a guess that God calculated their likelihood of redemption was far less than the certainty that they would tempt the Israelites into destruction, so He had to destroy them as a threat to His chosen people. Again, we have to remember free will. God wouldn't force them to repent of their wickedness, because that would take away their free will. He had to convince them. Presumably, He gave them sufficient opportunity to prove to His own infallible judgment that they would never turn away from their wickedness....

But really, I don't know. I'm not God.

Christ's sacrifice was necessary to satisfy the demands of God's justice. We had sinned. Over and over. And we are going to continue sinning. Someone had to pay a price for all of that sin. As an act of supreme love, God paid that price Himself by sending His Son to die for us.

Remember: Jesus is also God. He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. God didn't pick some random Jewish carpenter and use him as a scapegoat for the world. Instead, He satisfied His own justice by paying the price Himself.

How would you have done it?

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

So God cannot forgive? The sins must be paid for? He is incapable of just forgiving them?

Why did someone have to pay a price for all of that sin?
If someones hurts me, then repents, I don't have to choose between beating them up and beating myself up, I can just forgive. But God can't. Someone must pay. So he hurts himself.
To me, this is nonsense.

In a ancient world view, where religion is all about sacrificing to propitiate the gods, it does make sense. In a comparative mythology kind of way, I can see where the idea comes from.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Hello, me again here. Nice to see how this discussion is becoming interesting. I think all of us will learn something here, even from positions not shared, if we just keep open minded. Wow, lots of responses here around the time I was to university ^_^

I want to thank expecially SlipperyJim who is continuing to keep his position, and even giving attention to my rants, in a totally polite way. I don't share virtually any of his world views, but he is an excellent and interesting debater.

Ok, I would like to go to the lenghts here, but I'm really weak and tired after 8 hours of university. For that, really, I need to ask you to pardon the somewhat "rude" way I say = Prove it to me.

Please, of course, not quoting the Bible. I could just prove almost everything true with circular logic - God isn't real just because the Bible says so, as the Bible was written to prove this God to be real - just like the ancient Greek legends of Zeus' "miracles" were made to prove him real and still I don't believe them too.

It always confuses me how your God had no problem to do LOTS of HUGE miracles in the past, becoming so evident -resurrecting people, parting seas, casting flame storms on cities- not really leaving place to the free will to believe or not believe of the observers, and now that it would be easy for Him to prove wrong all today's sceptics doing ONE real miracle on CNN, He seems to have become shy (sorry, again, didn't want to sound rude, the words just came out in a somewhat ironic way :) )

If even you would prove that your God is real, and not one clearly created by man like Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Moloch, Chtulu, the FSM, which may or may not be have been worshipped now or in the past... and he is the only God, and not the Hindu ones i.e... Heck, even if He would appear in front of my face and being this way... Well sorry I wouldn't actually WORSHIP him. Not a God which consider the natural DOUBT (which he left leaving actually not even a REAL PROOF of him) so wicked that he sends billions of even GOOD people to BURN FOREVER just for this.

Also, excuse me, but I have to think if there is really a/some God/Goddess/Gods who have created all the billions of billions of stars and gigantic galaxies and the life forms from the lower bacteria to the most complex ones, I can't really see him/she/them in a so "little" and "wretched" activity like looking is every of his little creations' hearts, divide the ones who believe from the one who don't, and expect them do die to send the first ones in an all shiny and happy place and the other ones to SUFFER FOREVER. Period.


Ok, I really hope this was a mistake from you, because this is not be respectful at all. "Neverending party"? What are you talking about? People live their lives. They work, they suffer, they rejoice, they gain and lose precious people for them. All with the morals from their religion, Christian or not, or from their coscience. No "neverending party" for nobody (ok, only for those ducks of My Super Sweet Sixteen on MTV, may they really burn forever, no, joking again ^_^ ). Also, agnostic and atheists and buddhists don't see neverending parties anywhere, and surely not in any "afterlife".

Man, you are negating that your God is omniscient, or what? :confused: He couldn't have made a PLAN without involving EVERYTHING in it if he actually KNOWED everything that was gonna happen.

You are saying God is ALL-POWERFUL but he |||CAN'T||| make a person understand him and write his words correctly, just because he is ancient and ineducated?? He wants to save humanity with his message and gives it in the hands of an almost-caveman WITHOUT TAKING THE LITTLE TIME AND ENERGY (for Him) to make him UNDERSTAND his words and WRITE THEM CORRECTLY, and thus CONDEMNING all the naturally doubtful to NEVERENDING PAIN?? Seems like blasphemy ^_^ Sorry, joke

?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

"Shall there be EVIL in a city, and the LORD hath not DONE it?" [Amos 3:6]

Best wishes to everybody ;)

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Bingo.

Get back to me when you make it that far. It will be like a breath of fresh air. A somewhat scary breath of fresh air, on the verge of what we secularists like to refer to as "self reliance".

Oh and to help you along - there is no evidence whatsoever that a single person who ever met or "witnessed" Jesus ever wrote a single passage in the bible. Every account of him that you read was written by someone decades or centuries after the fact, who likely did not have the benefit of another written copy to work from - hence they had two choices, 1) obtain inspiration from word of mouth, 2) make stuff up. Given the overall quality and consistency of what is written in the bible, it would seem there was a little of both going on.


And for the record, I 100% refuse (as in it will never ever ever happen, NOT in all of eternity to "worship" an entity that would enact such a cruel and infinite torture on my everliving soul, for spending this tiny wisp of a lifetime NOT believing in something (someone) that there is absolutely no evidence for other than anecdotal centuries old writings. Since he either 1) refuses to create any new prophets of the credible caliber, or 2) has created a faith that refuses to recognize those prophets when they rise - then HE fails. It is not me who has failed or fallen, it is my father who IS fallible, and who is capable of punishing me for his own failure. That is a fragile and human entity - not the all powerful, all loving god whom I would be willing to worship if the situation actually warranted it, and he actually deserved it.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Tifone, did you just reference the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :happy:

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Ramen!

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

RAmen to you, my pastafarian brothers touched by His Noodly Appendage. You caught me :laugh:


At the risk of seeming offensive (and not wanting actually to be so), I sometimes used our great FSM in real religious debates.
The fact that the words "God", "Jesus", "Bible" (among others) have become so strong in the centuries in my society, bring sometimes my debating counterparts to believe that everything said in those names must be auto-legitimating to me, FAR ABOVE my own intellect and reason (the best thing all of us have IMHO)

Me:"Why should I oppose (i.e.) gay marriage? It doesn't damage me and I want those people to be happy like everybody else!"
Other:"Because GOD (<-loud and deep voice) said it is an abomination!"
Me:"If I tell you everybody must do everything I want because the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER (<-louder and deeper voice) told so, would you just accept it?!"

It can be very confusing for the adverse party and remind him/her that "God" is just a name, and saying this word loudly doesn't make his/her arguments truer than mine, if mine are just more reasonable (as I believe they are of course, or I wouldn't defend them - may I be right or wrong, the time the better judge ;) )


PS on a totally unrelated topic... FSM for Dom3 Pretender God!!

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

But but..... Didn't you know? Everything other than the one true god (how do we know which is which though?) is simply one of the infinite faces of the devil, trying to lure you away from the faith?

Of course, if you interpret the bible differently than I do, that means you are going to hell, and therefore you are also led astray by satan. By proxy, all Christians+Catholics are devil worshippers, because their particular belief system differs from another who claims the one true god.


I also worship the one true god. But what he told ME was that I didn't need to smite the differently-believing, I only needed to tell them to calm down and be quiet while we endeavor to resolve things on a human level. He was mum on the issue of heaven, but implied that more of us will be happy in the end, if we strive only to get along - as our top priority. He didn't say anything about the "costs" of getting along, but it seems like our current paradigm of NOT getting along, is costing us billions of lives and souls, and that's a bit steep.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

This is a rather long tread by now. I believe there was something I wanted to add to the discussion but somehow it drowned in fifty other posts or so :)

I want to thank SlipperyJim for his patience and dedication. This interesting thread would probably have have died without your continous efforts.

Personally I'm an atheist, unfortunately. I believe I would feel better if I found God. Unfortunately I find it unlikely that I will find any god, unless I'm directly approached by God.

Once I considered Islam to be the religion I found most attractive. If God has a plan it, why not tell people how society is supposed to be organized. Islam is quite integrated in society and the Quran says something about how society should be.

Later on I have tended to appreciate christianity more. Mostly since I view the core functional message of christianity as being: Just be gentle and love everyone.

I have been less fond of buddhism (theravada more than mahayana) and new age since I consider their salvation to be individualistic. But this was when I was young and less ... meek. Now I consider myself quite at a loss regarding the views of practicing buddhists. My only personal experience with buddhism is with members of Sokka Gakkai, and they are not that representative.

In a way I am partial to institutionalized religion, where there is a TRUTH. If there is a God , there is a truth, and thus there should be a great plan for life, society and the world. Thus I consider fundamentalists right on Gods track.

On the other hand I'm quite opposed to fundamentalist teachings, since I find them opposed to some of the values I adhere to. Mainly because of the interpretation of what the TRUTH is. Anyone who claims to know a truth is a potentially dangerous man. I dislike truth. That makes me a postmodernist. I strongly dislike postmodernists.

I view religion a as a tool that should guide and aid people respect and love others, aid people in trouble, inspire people to aid and help and build and compose and do good stuff to others and society.

My problem is that I want religion to be something else than I want my own devotion to be, should I become religious.

I should go for messiah-hood. That would solve my problems. :)
I'm actually halfway there. I already have students calling me Jesus, even yelling 'hello Jesus' from the other side of the street the other day. I had to smile :)


Hmm, not sure if I said what I intended when I started, but I sad something :)


Edit: I seem to have left junk and misspellings and stuff in my text, but I'm not in the mood of fixing it. You get my meaning anyway I hope.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Hmm, would it be appropriate to say that you are a spiritual person, but not truly a religious one, Kristoffer?

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

My view is that you don't need to belong to an organization or align yourself with a particular set of teachings.

Words to live by:
"To thine own self be true"

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I'm truly not religious. I'm quite materialistic, but I don't care about material things.

I'm mostly a feel good kind of person. I feel good regardless of circumstances. I rarely become angry or stressed and am more or less content with everything that happens. I'm not sure if that qualifies as spiritual.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I believe what Edi was getting at, was that it seems that you feel "it", though you don't understand the need to ritualize "it".

What is "it"? I don't think anyone really knows. According to some eastern teachings (they all kind of bleed together for me), when you discover what "it" truly is, it is beyond human language and expression, and thus everyone trying so fervently to tell you what "it" really is, are either liars, or just misguided.

In any case, I would agree, you (do you prefer Kristoffer, or is Kris okay?) do seem to feel "it". It's always nice to see that in people, I think your students would agree. :p

And don't feel too bad about your inability to define "it", like most of us who "feel it", you haven't yet "reached it", so "it"s a little bit foggy. Just give it some time.


And SlipperyJim, I also wanted to thank you. We're disagreeing quite handily here, and it is all managing to not turn ugly, that's pretty exceptional. Just remember that I am all for your ability to do, think, and feel what you please - I just draw the line on all the judgement and damnation junk. I am in no hurry to find anyone's god for one simple reason - I am entirely, 100% confident that I am a good and kind person - and therefore no all-loving god could ever commit me to any hell. The human mind loves the arbitrary, but this god person wouldn't let a guy like me be tortured for eternity over an issue of semantics. ;)

<3