I've been thinking about this for a long time now...
Everyone seems to view "God" as some great guy who created absolutely everything and loves each and every one of us individually and equally. Hell is where everyone "EVIL" goes when they die, under certain circumstances.
We are Imperfect creatures. If God made us, he purposely made us imperfect. He blames us for our sins and makes us ask for forgiveness for our sins but we sin because we are imperfect because he made us imperfect o.O
God is omniscent. He decides what happens yadda yadda yadda... So he decides beforehand if someone will go to heaven or hell, meaning we have no control of our lives? So since I'm atheist I was decided long ago that I would be an atheist and I would be ****ed to hell but I had no control of it? Sort of Fatalistic and nasty.
Noah took seven of the clean animals and 2 of the rest. Even with 7 clean animals two of the rest and 8 people we are not left with enough genetic diversity that we see today.
Yes, even the babies would have grown to be evil in the eyes of the Lord, because they would have been raised in those evil habits and practices.
So they weren't evil yet. Given he would have gotten rid of all the evil people they couldn't possibly have been raise in those evil habits seeing as there wouldn't be any of the evil people left to pass those habits down.
The reason God killed the Firstborn of all of the Egyptian households was because they were old enough to have been raised in hatred of the Jews (or Israelites. I am gonna call 'em Jews personally), and they would have fostered a greater hatred if the Jews killed or caused the deaths of their fathers.
It doesn't say that anywhere. It doesn't even say how old the first borns were, though given the population it's quite likely we are looking at God committing at least a bit of infanticide yet again.
Though I can't help to notice the excuse so far for God killing babies is to stop them from doing something they might do in the future. With such an argument I hope I don't catch you trying to use the free will argument later.
The reason He killed all of the Egyptian pursuers was because if the Egyptians had a large army, they could come back one day and overcome the Jews, considering they were a foundling, nomadic nation at this time.
he could have simply prevented the army from ever reaching them. For example when ever they get to close God could just whip up a big storm to prevent them from being able to move on. There are other option that would also be available to God that didn't involve killing as well. Not to mention if God had just knocked everyone out or whisked Moses and his people away, the Egyptian armies would have no idea where to start looking.
The thing about the formation of sin is, God did NOT make us perfect.
"If God intended to create us imperfectly, how is it our fault for sinning?" -skembree
Perfection is basically doing hte exact right thing all the time, with no option to do the wrong thing.
You would have the option you just wouldn't do it.
Even with 7 clean animals two of the rest and 8 people we are not left with enough genetic diversity that we see today.
Actually, this is one of the scientifically provable facts from the Bible. The ability for our DNA to mutate during gestation allows there to be an infinite amount of differences from the parent upon birth.
Actually, this is one of the scientifically provable facts from the Bible. The ability for our DNA to mutate during gestation allows there to be an infinite amount of differences from the parent upon birth.
*Facepalm*
So you are saying that two of most kinds of animals is enough genetic variation to fill the world? Good idea, lets test this out. Go get two lab rats and imbread them for several generations, and we will see how that works out.
The ability for our DNA to mutate during gestation allows there to be an infinite amount of differences from the parent upon birth.
This is true. But there are not normally many mutations, and even if there are, they generally are not serious. The problem with this is, in the time given in the bible form Noah's ark to even 2000 years ago, there would not have been enough time for genetic drift to have different ethnicities. Also, inbreeding causes more mutations, which can be quite harmful, although i'm not very knowledgeable in this subject, I do know you need a large enough gene pool to have a healthy species, otherwise errors compound and that species is vulnerable to disease.
Eh I know i'll get jumped on for this so I think i'll just correct myself now. This is somewhat true, but you can't have a human give birth to a fish, it doesn't work like that. It's more complex than just DNA mutation, there's gene expression, dominant/recessive traits, etc. It also doesn't happen relatively fast, it takes millions of years.
Actually, this is one of the scientifically provable facts from the Bible. The ability for our DNA to mutate during gestation allows there to be an infinite amount of differences from the parent upon birth.
I would like to see this passage that mentions genetic mutation. Since it's already been said there wouldn't have been enough time for enough genetic variability to develop I leave you with this.
Also, a lot of the comments from the atheists have come from an actual lack of knowledge about the Bible. You are definitely making a bad case for yourself if you speak from ignorance.
No offense, but the atheists tend to be the ones backing up their arguments with biblical quotes. Besides, they're simply asking questions. If they were ignorant of the bible, what better way to gain knowledge than to ask questions?
They were as close to perfect as you could get, but they had one, single, choice. Leave the fruit or eat it. They chose the route away from perfection.
May I offer an alternative explanation? Maybe God is not perfect. Maybe he is as close to perfect as you can get, but not perfect. I recall a few instances in the Bible where God thinks he has made a mistake. One example is: Genesis 6:5-7 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.) Why would God do anything that he would regret if he was perfect? It would only seem logical that God is not perfect, and that perfection is not attainable.
I haven't seen Satan do anything good for anybody lately.
According to the Bible? I don't like to entertain this theory the bible being God's propaganda, but if Satan were the good guy, God wouldn't exactly leave hints of Satan's benevolence in the bible, and Satan doesn't have a Bible into which he could put his deeds.
For the main purpose of this thread, I present a slightly different belief, that God is not perfect but learning. Imagine being a new parent if you will, not knowing how to discipline your children. He starts by punishing; taking our immortality, unleashing his wrath. As time goes on, maybe he learns to be a better god. Maybe he learns that he doesn't need to take lives on earth to keep order. Our flaws are not based on God planning us to have flaws, but rather on God having flaws of his own. I know most people think of God as a needing to be perfect or non-existent, but is it so absurd that maybe we had an intelligent but flawed designer? If this were the case, God may not be eternnally a friend or a foe. He may just be a person (after all, we are made in his image, so is he necessarily so unlike us?) trying to juggle mercy and justice, free will and fairness. I'd be interested to see what both parties think of this theory.
May I offer an alternative explanation? Maybe God is not perfect. Maybe he is as close to perfect as you can get, but not perfect.
Considering the screw ups we see him doing in the Bible he couldn't even be close to perfect. Let's take how he constructed this solar system (giving the benefit of doubt for a moment here). We have God creating the earth and even plant life before the sun. From what we know of how the sun is required for the gravitational effects to hold the earth in a stable orbit, which would have been required for the plant life. We see here a mistake in construction that we would only expect from at best an amateur. The sun is like a foundational base for the rest of the solar system. With that analogy all God did here was give himself more work to do and did things the hard way. If some day we were to develop to the point where we can make artificial solar systems in the same amount of time you can be sure that a human would not make such a mistake. we can eve use the house building analogy to see humans don't make such mistakes.
For the main purpose of this thread, I present a slightly different belief, that God is not perfect but learning.
Just as a heads up I'll be using your entire paragraph for reference not just the specific quote above.
If God is not perfect we're forced to assume that his judgement is not perfect. If that's the case then what right would he have to condemn individuals to hell? The general argument goes that people must go to hell because god, being perfect, cannot be around sin if he isn't perfect then he must simply be vengeful.
He may just be a person (after all, we are made in his image, so is he necessarily so unlike us?) trying to juggle mercy and justice, free will and fairness.
I love this point of view. Thank you for sharing it. No sarcasm. Seriously.
have God creating the earth and even plant life before the sun. From what we know of how the sun is required for the gravitational effects to hold the earth in a stable orbit, which would have been required for the plant life.
Eh. God is all powerful. Negates the need for anything to be that way it is today.
Eh. God is all powerful. Negates the need for anything to be that way it is today.
No it doesn't. Anyway I gave the benefit of doubt to his power and existence there so I'm allowing for God to be able to do it. What I'm arguing against is the process as the order in which he did things just adds more work. Not something that would be expected from a perfect being as doing it that way is far from perfect and is in fact amateurish compared to what an admittedly flawed human would do if capable.
@samy: I actually have an alternative explanation about Hell in this thread. I'll leave you a linky but I'll summarize it. Hell may not be a place of punishment but simply a place were we can be away from God, either by choice or because it would be an injustice to the people in heaven. Hell is always associated with bad, but how many atheists would prefer to live without the Christian god?
The general argument goes that people must go to hell because god, being perfect, cannot be around sin if he isn't perfect then he must simply be vengeful.
Just because he isn't perfect doesn't mean he wants to be around sin. Wouldn't it make more sense for God not to want sin in his sanctuary if he is not perfect? He doesn't have the perfect way to deal with its presence.
This is all theoretical, mind you, so I'm not speaking for any Christian denominations.
@Mage:
Not something that would be expected from a perfect being as doing it that way is far from perfect and is in fact amateurish compared to what an admittedly flawed human would do if capable.
This is actually part of what I meant to say too. It may be possible that by having us to interact with, God may be learning from his mistakes. If it was God and only God in the beginning, and if he wasn't perfect, it would make sense for his creation method to be amateurish.
Hell may not be a place of punishment but simply a place were we can be away from God, either by choice or because it would be an injustice to the people in heaven. Hell is always associated with bad, but how many atheists would prefer to live without the Christian god?
I'd prefer to live with the billions of my human brethren who do not believe in god. But yes I agree with your point. The idea of a hell where souls are tormented isn't necessarily biblical and is a bit contradictory in the light of the way God is described and all loving.
Just because he isn't perfect doesn't mean he wants to be around sin. Wouldn't it make more sense for God not to want sin in his sanctuary if he is not perfect? He doesn't have the perfect way to deal with its presence.
Not wanting too be around sin and not being able too are two different things. In the former scenario he comes across as sanctimonious in the latter a bit more understandable but a bit confusing nevertheless.
