The Bible portrays God as both loving and a father figure. But, as a loving parent, I would think it a horrible failure on my part if I didn’t educate my children well, and supervise them kindly, teaching them how to live safe and well and warning them of unknown or unexpected dangers. If they asked me to butt out I would. But if they didn’t, it would be unconscionable to ignore them, to offer them no comfort or protection or advice. Indeed, society would deem me fit for prison if I did. It would be felony criminal neglect. Yet that is God. An absentee mom, who lets kids get kidnapped and murdered or run over by cars, who does nothing to teach them what they need to know, who never sits down like a loving parent to have an honest chat with them, who would let them starve if someone else didn’t intervene.
>god is either an cosmic absentee dad or he doesn't exist, checkmate
please leave
>>350806
> it a horrible failure on my part if I didn’t educate my children well, and supervise them kindly, teaching them how to live safe and well and warning them of unknown or unexpected dangers.
God does that though
> it would be unconscionable to ignore them, to offer them no comfort or protection or advice.
good thing he does then.
>>350815
Not what I said at all. Just that almost any idea of a god that fits the actual evidence of the world is unconscionable.
>>350835
If you're talking about American protestant retard god of hating darkies and shooting abortion doctors, yes.
If you're talking about a god of a real religion, then maybe sometimes.
>>350806
>pic
It's an entrance exam.
You know, like how failing school can ruin your career for the rest of your life. God only wants the benevolent for his benevolent heaven. He doesn't give a shit about anyone else.
>>350871
>implying God needs to have you do a test to know the results of it
>>350820
>God does that though
No he doesn't, I can't name a time he did any of those things to me in my life
>>350858
Just whatever God exists if one does exist
Eternity is:
1. The whole of time
2. That which trascends time
In case 1, yes, life as a part of eternity is nothing. In case 2 it is absurd to say of eternity it has infinite, finite or zero duration, in case 2 eternity is a stranger to measures. Eternity 1 is never promised, the eternity of the afterlife is eternity 2, eternity 2 is also a concept that arises as negation of time, man as a being in time is already in relation to time in this life, in time. It is in this sense that we say that our relation with eternity is defined inside time, because eternity is not a simple infinite prolongation of time(eternity 1), but that sphere of the self that arises in relation to time but not as an alteration of it but as a negation, time and eternity are interdepent yet separate and synthesized in that beings that are in relation to both, and can be even defined as the synthesis of the contradiction, that is: us, men, the images of god, the reflection of time in eternity and eternity in time, in other words the imanents of eternity or the trascendts of time, human beings
This is all rooted in contradictions and you shouldnt try to understand it logically, this has nothing to do with logic or argumentation, as all faith, it is based in nothing and if you dont want it to be true, you are free to want so
>>350806
That's why an afterlife is required.
>>351999
Also, answering your question, love is not moral, love is a concept above secular ethics. Eventhough love is usually in accordance with the ethical good, it is also possible that for one to love other, one must commit inmoral acts, to the point where even killing him is necessary to be truthful to love. I can see situations in which killing my son could come out of love, God (and love)is a trascendent something(¿Nothing perhaps?)and as with all trascendent beings, understanding through deduction leads nowhere, either you experience it or you dont, and no sequence of utterable words can create the context necessary for you to understand this
>>352033
That is why no true faith lacks doubt, because faith is precisely understanding of that which has nothing to do with rationality, when faith is exposed to rationality the self trembles, not because it resists justification, but because it also resists falsification, and therefore the doubt is inevitable and leads nowhere. The negation of faith is never rational, if you negate faith by reason what you negated was not faith in a first place, negation or affirmation of faith are necessary acts of faith themselveIn. It goes the other way arround, someone who believes in the rationality of his beliefs doesnt believe either.
If we say "god is love" in sincere faith, we will find that arguments arise for and against it without a clear conclusion, and the same would happen if we were to say "god is nothing such as love. If you doubt it god is love, that doubt is pressuposed in faith and you dont bring nothing to the table, dont expect refutation or confirmation, since both movements are equally possible. It is up to your freedom to take the step you want in either direction or even to live forever contemplating the limitless logical ramification and never truthfully engaging in belief
Why does everyone always try to apply modern humanistic values to God(s)? If there is a God, he makes the rules, he decides what's just and unjust.
>>352107
Is that you Mr. Craig?
maybe you should actually read the bible. god is with us but you need to embrace him and accept the spirit of christ. don't you even know what 'emmanuel' means?
>>351260
He doesn't need to do anything.
He created a system were humans generate themselves, and get filtered by a saint. Why doesn't he do this instantly? All of human time is infinitely small compared to eternity and approaches instantaneous.
>>352134
Who? All I'm saying is, if God exists, I think as the creator of everything, he'd be more of an authority on morals than some human chucklefuck.
>>352192
How could your morals ever apply to the infinite and infallible?
Morals are for the finite and fallible.
>>352199
>How could your morals ever apply to the infinite and infallible?
That's what I'm saying. Human morals can't be applied to a being completely beyond human comprehension. If God exists, and he's personally set up rules for humans to follow, what are we as mere humans to criticize?
I'm not saying that all humans should become religious, just that it's naive to apply modern human morals to a God.
>>352216
Humans created those rules. They just gave credit to god because appeal to authority. God doesn't give a shit about morals.
>>352220
>God doesn't give a shit about morals.
So, God can basically lie and send everybody to hell and that would be moral?
>>352285
Morals simply don't apply to god. You're trying to imagine a scenario that is immoral, but it's moot, because morals don't apply in the first place. Morals are to deal with the shortcomings of being mortal.
>>352292
>Morals are to deal with the shortcomings of being mortal
What? No they aren't
>>350871
>God only wants the benevolent for his benevolent heaven.
>Jews are allowed
God is not your mom you fucking pussy. He gave us free will so we wouldn't be perpetual babies.
>>353218
What does free will have to do with taking care of someone you love?
>>351373
because you didn't accept him into your heart. God won't force himself upon you.
>>356024
>You either have sex with me or else I'll torture you forever. Now choose.
God is the ultimate rapist in the universe.
>>356024
This seems tantamount to saying that you will only find God if you already accept the relevant faith as being true, which means dismissing all other faiths from the outset. That's very obtuse if your ultimate goal is to discern truth.
>>356024
I'm completely open to any help I can get from anybody.
t. Poor college student
>>350806
God is a nigger and doesn't want to pay child support
>>350806
That's why I'm into esoteric buddhism, familia.
>>359975
Should look into Taoism, I much prefer it to Buddhism. I recommend an annotated version of the Tao Te Ching, http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Ching-Annotated-Explained-Illuminations/dp/1594732043
>>352107
>he makes the rules
He's free to make his own rules, that doesn't mean they are right
>>352163
I don't see how the bible is relevant to this, OP doesn't make any reference to any specific god
>>351373
>I can't name a time he did any of those things to me in my life
that's because you didnt pay attention at Sunday School
>>350806
This is unrelated to your post (I'm not going to bother responding to it because I think that it raises a question that is best discussed either in person or via email or something. 4chan just isn't a good place to discuss religion) but why does your image assume that something which occupies a relatively small portion of time can't contain anything significant? Can you or someone else explain?
>>363364
What could possibly be significant enough to determine all of your eternity?
>>363395
Maybe genocide.
>>363414
A finite amount of crimes simply cannot be infinitely significant
>>363423
I don't know dude
Genocide is pretty bad.
>>362987
literally the first two words in OP is 'the bible'
>>363435
Yes, it is, but it is some finite amount of bad. That finite amount of badness can be extremely high, but not infinite. And it will always be dwarfed in comparison to eternity.
A billion is a much higher number than two, but compared to infinity they're both tiny.
>>363466
>A billion is a much higher number than two, but compared to infinity they're both tiny.
They're the same distance from infinity
>>363364
>4chan just isn't a good place to discuss religion
Why not?
>>363296
I wasn't raised in any particular faith. That's not my fault
