Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Question For The Religious Fundementalists
131 Answers
Would you still love God if you knew he was going to damn you to eternal torment? After all you assert that we are all born sinners and worthy of hell because God is 'righteous' and that's what we deserve.
Seems to me that the religious, for all their talk of loving God, are only loving God because they are afraid of NOT doing so.
Not been flippant here, I'm genuinely interested in why you would want to worship an entity that would torture you for an eternity if you DIDNT love him.
Thanks :-)
Seems to me that the religious, for all their talk of loving God, are only loving God because they are afraid of NOT doing so.
Not been flippant here, I'm genuinely interested in why you would want to worship an entity that would torture you for an eternity if you DIDNT love him.
Thanks :-)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
idiosyncracy //The suffering of Job was not from god. It was from satan. (read Job 1 v 8) He allowed Satan to torment Job because Satan claimed God protected Job.//
God instructed Satan to persecute Job by acts that included killing his children. The crime would be incitement to murder or procuring a murder. Under modern laws God would be locked away for a very long time.
It is high time decent people everywhere woke up and got this hateful deity out of their loves forever.
God instructed Satan to persecute Job by acts that included killing his children. The crime would be incitement to murder or procuring a murder. Under modern laws God would be locked away for a very long time.
It is high time decent people everywhere woke up and got this hateful deity out of their loves forever.
idiosyncracy // Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to answer your comment but I will. For now, let me say you are completely wrong in your interpretation. //
It isn't an interpretation. It is what it clearly says in the Bible.
I bet you don't offer any answer that amounts to more than "you are wrong"... if you answer at all. But note that I will hold you to your promise of an answer.
It isn't an interpretation. It is what it clearly says in the Bible.
I bet you don't offer any answer that amounts to more than "you are wrong"... if you answer at all. But note that I will hold you to your promise of an answer.
Idiosyncrasy, according to Billy Graham it was only necessary to utter
The Sinner's Prayer to gain salvation
Billy Graham >>
Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior. In Your Name.
Amen.
But perhaps you know better?
The Sinner's Prayer to gain salvation
Billy Graham >>
Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior. In Your Name.
Amen.
But perhaps you know better?
Beso@ I would appreciate where these accounts you quote are supposedly to be. Once I know the Chapter and verse then I can give you a reply. But for a certainty I can tell you that you have the wrong end of the stick on a number of the accounts.
For example, you state that women are only worth half the man. Women were created to be a helper/companion to the man.
Its true that with the Headship arrangement the Head of the woman is man. However, every individual has a "head". Man is subject to Jesus. Even Jesus was subject to his father.
This was to be for the advantage of the family. If the husband and wife were always fighting for the right to "lead" the family - like a ship with two captains - this would bring chaos and any children would not know where they were. Husband and wife were to work together listening to each other and then making a decision equally.
Sorry to say, that this does not happen in modern day society because women are determined to be better than the man. (albeit sometimes they are). And some men look on women as "dirt" ( for want of a better word).
Once you get back to me with the precise chapters on the other matters I can answer more fully.
For example, you state that women are only worth half the man. Women were created to be a helper/companion to the man.
Its true that with the Headship arrangement the Head of the woman is man. However, every individual has a "head". Man is subject to Jesus. Even Jesus was subject to his father.
This was to be for the advantage of the family. If the husband and wife were always fighting for the right to "lead" the family - like a ship with two captains - this would bring chaos and any children would not know where they were. Husband and wife were to work together listening to each other and then making a decision equally.
Sorry to say, that this does not happen in modern day society because women are determined to be better than the man. (albeit sometimes they are). And some men look on women as "dirt" ( for want of a better word).
Once you get back to me with the precise chapters on the other matters I can answer more fully.
idiosyncracy //Women were created to be a helper/companion to the man.
Its true that with the Headship arrangement the Head of the woman is man. However, every individual has a "head". Man is subject to Jesus. Even Jesus was subject to his father. //
You simply try to justify your arbitrary appointment of a man as superior by repeating the prejudices of your faith and claiming that it it is the way of God.
//If the husband and wife were always fighting for the right to "lead" the family - like a ship with two captains - this would bring chaos and any children would not know where they were. Husband and wife were to work together listening to each other and then making a decision equally. //
Rubbish. Millions of families get along just fine without the woman taking a subordinate position. All children learn in a system where the man is always first is that females are lesser beings. The lower the status of women in society the more they are oppressed. This pattern is so obvious in the Middle East and it is very unhealthy.
Moreover God's insults against women aren't just a matter of being designated helpers. For example a woman is considered "unclean" for twice as long after giving birth to a girl than a boy. Women must not speak in church.
You are working to arbitrary "boy's club" rules written by arrogant misogynists.
Its true that with the Headship arrangement the Head of the woman is man. However, every individual has a "head". Man is subject to Jesus. Even Jesus was subject to his father. //
You simply try to justify your arbitrary appointment of a man as superior by repeating the prejudices of your faith and claiming that it it is the way of God.
//If the husband and wife were always fighting for the right to "lead" the family - like a ship with two captains - this would bring chaos and any children would not know where they were. Husband and wife were to work together listening to each other and then making a decision equally. //
Rubbish. Millions of families get along just fine without the woman taking a subordinate position. All children learn in a system where the man is always first is that females are lesser beings. The lower the status of women in society the more they are oppressed. This pattern is so obvious in the Middle East and it is very unhealthy.
Moreover God's insults against women aren't just a matter of being designated helpers. For example a woman is considered "unclean" for twice as long after giving birth to a girl than a boy. Women must not speak in church.
You are working to arbitrary "boy's club" rules written by arrogant misogynists.
Beso@You cant see beyond the end of your nose. I think you are the one who is indoctrinated. Indoctrinated by this doc-called "free society". Anything goes.
Many families follow the leadership role albeit they are not aware of it. Husband love and cherish their wives, and most wives respect their husbands. If they don't there is usually a reason.
But I am now of the opinion that I am wasting my time trying to discuss things with you.
I requested that you tell me where your controveries with the Bible accounts were and you haven't. Which leads me to the conclusion you do not know, all you have is hear say.
Many families follow the leadership role albeit they are not aware of it. Husband love and cherish their wives, and most wives respect their husbands. If they don't there is usually a reason.
But I am now of the opinion that I am wasting my time trying to discuss things with you.
I requested that you tell me where your controveries with the Bible accounts were and you haven't. Which leads me to the conclusion you do not know, all you have is hear say.
Beso//For example a woman is considered "unclean" for twice as long after giving birth to a girl than a boy. Women must not speak in church. //
You are referring to an ancient law. These do not apply under the law instituted by the death of Jesus Christ.
Women can speak in church. There is nothing wrong against women speaking in church, What Paul was referring to was that women were arguing and hence Paul was telling them to go home and discuss the relevant matter with their husbands.
I really don't have the patience to talk with you. Its a matter of going round the Mulberry bush.
You are referring to an ancient law. These do not apply under the law instituted by the death of Jesus Christ.
Women can speak in church. There is nothing wrong against women speaking in church, What Paul was referring to was that women were arguing and hence Paul was telling them to go home and discuss the relevant matter with their husbands.
I really don't have the patience to talk with you. Its a matter of going round the Mulberry bush.
idiosyncracy //Husband and wife were to work together listening to each other and then making a decision equally. //
Of course. That is the sensible way where neither is arbitrarily designated as the ultimate authority. But that is not what your religion insists upon.
//Sorry to say, that this does not happen in modern day society because women are determined to be better than the man. //
When men are of course better than women? That is what your book says. You couldn't stomach being in a situation where a woman has any authority and insist that authority rightly belongs to men. That exposes you as a hypocrite.
Objective morality works on such issues by checking that the policy is fair in both directions. Religion clearly puts the woman's role at a disadvantage and is hence the religious philosophy is subjective and inferior.
Of course. That is the sensible way where neither is arbitrarily designated as the ultimate authority. But that is not what your religion insists upon.
//Sorry to say, that this does not happen in modern day society because women are determined to be better than the man. //
When men are of course better than women? That is what your book says. You couldn't stomach being in a situation where a woman has any authority and insist that authority rightly belongs to men. That exposes you as a hypocrite.
Objective morality works on such issues by checking that the policy is fair in both directions. Religion clearly puts the woman's role at a disadvantage and is hence the religious philosophy is subjective and inferior.
idiosyncrasy //I requested that you tell me where your controveries with the Bible accounts were and you haven't. //
I hadn't yet. I do have a life beyond answerbank. Besides, your requirement to be told the precise locations in the Bible is disingenuous. They are all well known passages and you are simply trying to avoid confronting the reality.
Lot is referred to a righteous in 2 Peter 2:7-8. He offers his daughters to the rapists and in Genesis 19:8. He has sex with his daughters in Genesis 19:31.
I hadn't yet. I do have a life beyond answerbank. Besides, your requirement to be told the precise locations in the Bible is disingenuous. They are all well known passages and you are simply trying to avoid confronting the reality.
Lot is referred to a righteous in 2 Peter 2:7-8. He offers his daughters to the rapists and in Genesis 19:8. He has sex with his daughters in Genesis 19:31.
Much of the Book of Joshua is devoted to brutal massacres in the name of God.
Cutting open pregnant women
Hosea 13:6 (sometimes numbered 14:1)
2 Kings 15:16
Killing every woman who is not a virgin
Numbers 31:15-18
Smashing children
Psalms 137:9
These are not isolated example. The Bible is littered with brutal killings, often for trivial reasons.
Cutting open pregnant women
Hosea 13:6 (sometimes numbered 14:1)
2 Kings 15:16
Killing every woman who is not a virgin
Numbers 31:15-18
Smashing children
Psalms 137:9
These are not isolated example. The Bible is littered with brutal killings, often for trivial reasons.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
ChatterBank84 mins ago
Crosswords138 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.