The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions

[erowe1]

Full quotes often eliminate Huhs?.

Sometimes. But not in this case.

[robert68]

Why would a father have a son in order to sacrifice him, when there are an infinite number of other alternatives for him to achieve the exact same ends?

Almighty Bible gods have to issue non rescindable death sentences for all of humanity if one person disobeys him.

[otherone]

I can't say that nothing could be more excruciating than crucifixion. Some things might be equal to it or worse. But on the spectrum of human suffering, Jesus was among that small portion of the human race who experience things that are at its very pinnacle.

I understand. I just don't agree. At least Jesus had a decent meal before he died.

[Ronin Truth]

Almighty Bible gods can't rescind death sentences for all of humanity once given.

Last time I checked, Bible Gods can do any damn thing they want and choose.

[Ronin Truth]

Sometimes. But not in this case.

Does for me.

[Ronin Truth]

There you go again, noticing things that get you thinking, that, if you really stay on that path, lead right to the Gospel that Paul (and Jesus) preached about Jesus.

This one is the scandal of the cross, and it's all through the Bible, from beginning to end. This cosmic-scale insistence on divine irony, where victory over tyrants comes through letting them kill you, and the last end up being first.

I prefer the victory over tyrants where they kill themselves, which prevents them from killing others. A couple of hundred years of watching that happen consistently and the world would have a whole lot fewer tyrants and tyrant wannbes.

[Ronin Truth]

Almighty Bible gods have to issue non rescindable death sentences for all of humanity if one person disobeys him.

Last time I checked, Almighty Bible Gods can do any damn thing they want and choose.

[Ronin Truth]

Why?

Because it's cheesy and not at all entertaining.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's precisely my point:

I'm still failing to see your point, that Messiah's sacrifice is somehow irrelevant because it wasn't done by axe-murder?

[Muwahid]

It was my understanding that we are ALL God's children, yet he allows a lot worse than crucifixions to happen every day. Of course, there is the "promise" of Paradise, at least for those special little pots who have actually heard the Word. Sucks to be born in the remote regions of the world. Divine amusement, maybe.

Qur'an 17:15 وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا (And we do not punish those until we have sent them a messenger)

[erowe1]

Because it's cheesy and not at all entertaining.

For whom?

[erowe1]

I prefer the victory over tyrants where they kill themselves, which prevents them from killing others. A couple of hundred years of watching that happen consistently and the world would have a whole lot fewer tyrants and tyrant wannbes.

Of course you do.

[Muwahid]

The argument of evil, a popular atheistic position against God is in my opinion a circular argument. You hear many times atheists say "If God was so merciful, why does x happen", "Why does God allow x to happen? Can't he stop it?"

The argument posits that:
1. If God knows about suffering, can stop it, but doesn't then he's not omnibenevolent
2. If God doesn't know about suffering but would stop it and he has the power to he's no omniscient
3. If God knows about the suffering but can't stop it he's not omnipotent

Thus negating central attributes of God, thus God cannot exist with the attributes most religions claim he has.

Where this argument errs is in not recognizing the free will of man (which in and of itself is a blessing), and not recognizing the promise of God (to compensate fully and then some for all suffering). This argument only works if you assume there is no [Abrahamic] God to carry out these promises.

One analogy (albeit not perfect) could be if a mother (a) knows a wound on her child will cause an infection (b) wants to prevent that out of love (c) has the power to do so with a disinfectant -- then she is knowledgeable of the situation, loving, and executes a solution, but to the child, this solution is painful and he may not understand the benefits of it until later.

So when God allows suffering, its something beneficial in the long term.

The only other variant of this argument could be that "If God was omnibenevolent why does he send people to hell for not believing in him", and I believe this has more to do with the objectivity vs. subjectivity of morality. In an anthropocentric worldview "not believing in God" is not something we find to be morally corrupt, because our own sense of morals come out of desire and sensitivities (we don't want to be harmed, so we wont harm others), theists would argue morality is objective and God is the standard for morality, and he told us right and wrong and its part of the test of mankind to recognize him as the only moral authority. To reject God is to call God's messengers liars (or worse), and it is to ignore the one responsible for your soul despite the message being sent to mankind.

[otherone]

Qur'an 17:15 وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا (And we do not punish those until we have sent them a messenger)

Good gravy.
Keep your effin messenger away from me.

[Muwahid]

Good gravy.
Keep your effin messenger way from me.

Well that's not very nice

[otherone]

The argument of evil, a popular atheistic position against God is in my opinion a circular argument. You hear many times atheists say "If God was so merciful, why does x happen", "Why does God allow x to happen? Can't he stop it?"

The argument posits that:
1. If God knows about suffering, can stop it, but doesn't then he's not omnibenevolent
2. If God doesn't know about suffering but would stop it and he has the power to he's no omniscient
3. If God knows about the suffering but can't stop it he's not omnipotent

Thus negating central attributes of God, thus God cannot exist with the attributes most religions claim he has.

Atheists don't posit these questions.
The central question that atheists ask is "If God exists, what does he gain out of all of this?
Does the allmighty have poor self-esteem? What's the motive?"

[otherone]

Well that's not very nice

You are telling me that I can't be PUNISHED until I've heard the "word", and I"M the one not being nice?

[Crashland]

The only other variant of this argument could be that "If God was omnibenevolent why does he send people to hell for not believing in him", and I believe this has more to do with the objectivity vs. subjectivity of morality. In an anthropocentric worldview "not believing in God" is not something we find to be morally corrupt, because our own sense of morals come out of desire and sensitivities (we don't want to be harmed, so we wont harm others), theists would argue morality is objective and God is the standard for morality, and he told us right and wrong and its part of the test of mankind to recognize him as the only moral authority. To reject God is to call God's messengers liars (or worse), and it is to ignore the one responsible for your soul despite the message being sent to mankind.

The problem here, is that believing a claim to be factually true or untrue, is not a moral issue. It is completely involuntary. If you honestly believe that there is a God, could you just flip a switch and choose to honestly believe that God doesn't exist? That's not how it works. You can't fault someone for being convinced or not convinced about something. God apparently sees no problem with doing this, though. What exactly is this "test" by which God judges us? He lays a bunch of highly disputable "evidence" in front of us to test us to see which of us is smart enough or gullible enough to put the pieces together and be convinced that he exists? What kind of pathetic "moral" test is that?

[Ronin Truth]

Of course you do.

And the world would be a better place.

[Ronin Truth]

For whom?

For Meem.

[GunnyFreedom]

And the world would be a better place.

For Meem.

Holistic self absorption is a classic sign of the lack of regeneration. Like the fake Christians who pass behavioral laws to make the world more comfortable for themselves, laying an eternal burden on other's souls for the sake of their own temporal comfort. It stems from a lack of perception of the eternal realm. If you cannot see eternity, then there is no sense in giving up the sands of time for it.

[otherone]

I'm still failing to see your point, that Messiah's sacrifice is somehow irrelevant because it wasn't done by axe-murder?

noooooooo.
That there have been MANY whom God has caused to have suffered MORE.

[GunnyFreedom]

noooooooo.
That there have been MANY whom God has caused to have suffered MORE.

Is this some kind of contest, where whomever gets the most suffer-points wins? Or is there more of an ideological component, where a redemption was perfected in a specific kind of suffering? I say it is not the amount of suffering but the logical, meaningful component of the suffering that mortice and tenon between Heaven and Earth to form the Bridge. It is not the quantity of a thing but the quality of a thing that sings out and paints all of the creation in it's Spirit. As a rainbow upon the clouds of witnesses.

[Ronin Truth]

WA WA WAA WAAA WA WA WA.

Not a Christian, so I don't really care.

[otherone]

Is this some kind of contest, where whomever gets the most suffer-points wins?

no.
Ronin questioned God's concern for his SON by allowing his crucifixion.
My response was that God has caused his other children to suffer MORE.
capeche?
The broader point is that God is the author of ALL suffering, for some inscrutable purpose.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not a Christian, so I don't really care.

I love you too, Ronin Truth.

[GunnyFreedom]

no.
Ronin questioned God's concern for his SON by allowing his crucifixion.
My response was that God has caused his other children to suffer MORE.
capeche?
The broader point is that God is the author of ALL suffering, for some inscrutable purpose.

LOL so I was adamantly arguing with you, in favor of the point you had actually made? oy vey this other guy has me en garde.

[otherone]

LOL so I was adamantly arguing with you, in favor of the point you had actually made? oy vey this other guy has me en garde.

LOL.
But you are a very poetic apologetic.

[Muwahid]

Atheists don't posit these questions.
The central question that atheists ask is "If God exists, what does he gain out of all of this?
Does the allmighty have poor self-esteem? What's the motive?"

Yes they do, atheist philosophers anyway. It's an extremely popular argument, and I see atheists use it all the time, in some variant or another.

As far as reasons, that's an anthropomorphic view. You're attributing human emotion to a non-human entity.

You are telling me that I can't be PUNISHED until I've heard the "word", and I"M the one not being nice?

I was addressing your concern that people who live in remote regions and don't know about the world religions are somehow damned. The point is God doesn't damn a nation unless they were given a chance to accept the message, but they refused via their own freewill.

[GunnyFreedom]

LOL.
But you are a very poetic apologetic.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. And thank you, I spent most of the 1990's on old-school NNTP Christian Usenet under the moniker 'psalmsmith' I guess 'poetic apologetics' was exactly what I was aiming for.