[_ Old Earth _] How is the Christian god detected?

[AAA]

The key forces involved are precisely tuned, optimized for life. Did that precision just happen?

In addition to the logical possibility that Yawheh/Jesus/HolyGhost did it, there are an infinite number of other logical possibilities, including natural one(s).

I don't see how you have contributed one iota of evidence that the triune Christian god is responsible for the apparent fine tuning of the universe.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Some additional random thoughts...
- Who defines ridiculous or intellectual honesty and by what standards? I think opera is ridiculous but others will tell you it is the best type of musical performance. You say science is just "...one strict form of intellectual honest". Are there others? Can you admit that intellectual honestly means different things to different people?

Surely you can't mean to imply that musical taste is analogous to the claims of Christianity? The claims of Christianity are either true or false. Jesus either was or was not born of a virgin. He either did or did not raise Lazarus, and he either will or will not judge our candidacy for eternal hellfire based on whether we can come to believe, based on insufficient evidence, that he was ritually murdered as a scapegoat for our indiscretions.

Can we agree that the claims of holocaust deniers are ridiculous? If so, how do we do that? By using "faith"? By using "mystical experiences", or "gut feelings", by employing an inner sense of what is right/true/real?

Intellectual honesty is just being reasonable about what one can conclude based on information and evidence. It is true that we can quibble about what's reasonable and unreasonable at some point. Far from that point though, everyone would agree that my claim about the undetectable dragon in my garage is unreasonable. Furthermore, everyone would agree that a claim that if you drop an apple, it will fall upwards is also unreasonable. There is a large territory in between, but it can't possibly be covered or addressed by pleasant gut feelings, or mystical sensations of "voids". Also, avoiding bias is an important part of intellectual honesty.

[quote="Aero_Hudson":2rszigdz]By your definitions, what is the harm if I am intellectually dishonest?

I have already alluded to the serious harm to which intellectual dishonesty can contribute. (Do you think it was intellectually honest of the 19 hijackers to count on a virgin-filled paradise?)

- Work with me on this one. Let's assume for a second that we know for sure there is a God. We have one event or piece of evidence that proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt for everyone. Me have this one piece of evidence but other than that we do not understand how God works or how His supernatural world works. Because we don't know how it works should we ignore it and put it on the backburner until we can come to understand him or do we keep searching for ways to get closer to God so we can understand?

By all means, we should search for ways to communicate with and understand that god, and if "gut feelings" can be shown to reliably provide good information about that god, then we should use our "gut feelings". But make no mistake about it: in that hypothetical world, we will be assessing the effectiveness of "gut feelings" as a way of learning about or communicating with god the same way that we evaluate everything else: by an intellectually honest appraisal of evidence.

- I have no problem organizing my life around the teachings of Jesus. I don't find that funny in the slightest not absurd nor a waste of time.

I didn't mean to imply that the tenets of Christianity were humorous. I did mean to imply that the irony of our situation would be humorous if it wasn't so scary, that situation being that the religious claims that humans consider to be the most important truths about the universe are based on the weakest "evidence" like "gut feelings", "revelation", and "mystical experiences".

I think that there are many lessons that we can learn from the story of Jesus including the powers of redemption, the dangers of greed, the power of compassion, etc. I don't think that we need to accept any claims included in that story based on insufficient evidence though, including that Jesus is part of a triune deity that created the universe and mankind and will judge the extent to which we can truly accept claims on insufficient evidence before deciding that our infinite lives will be spent in hellfire.

- I am interested in learning more about your Christian experience. I started out as one as well for my first 16 years and had a very bad experience. It colored me against God and religion in a very profound way. I found out that those I was having the experience with didn't get it. Personally, I now think I do get it and no longer feel lost. Do you wish to share your story?

A brief version of my story can be found here:http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=41492&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15[/quote:2rszigdz]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You have made up your mind and it seems that you are not here to explore the possibility that you are incorrect. You are here to tell others they are being intellectually dishonest. I'm alright with that if you are. However, as a result, I will not post with you any further on this topic. I believe in God. I believe that Christ died for my sins. And I believe that I am on this earth to bring as much of the kingdom of God as I can to others around me including you. If that is not what you believe I hope it works for you just as much as my belief works for me.

God bless.

 

[AAA]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You have made up your mind and it seems that you are not here to explore the possibility that you are incorrect. You are here to tell others they are being intellectually dishonest. I'm alright with that if you are...I believe that Christ died for my sins...If that is not what you believe I hope it works for you just as much as my belief works for me.

Fair enough AH. Thanks for you candour in this and all of your posts.

While I once believed what you do, what I now believe does indeed work very well for me.

I am here to have the conversation about why we believe what we believe. I have been looking for an understanding of why Christians consider "faith", an illegitimate route to knowledge in every other sphere of conversation, to be such a legitimate route to the most important knowledge in the universe. Defending what one believes is a good way of understanding why one believes what one does, and of strengthening one's belief, if that's appropriate. Like most people, I can become too defensive sometimes, so I hope that if I have done that, I haven't caused any offence.

Peace.

 

[Orion]

AAA, . . . evidence is important, as you well know. Evidence AND lack of evidence is what brought me out of christianity. The evidence of the natural world didn't equate to the bible stories I had heard all my life, nor the doctrines that my church so devoutly stood/stands on.

But as I searched for "evidence" of God, while I was a christian, and as I remembered back to my christian past, I had to come to the conclusion that ALL my attempts to "find God" came back with ear splitting . . . silence. It hit me as being very odd that this "loving god" wouldn't at least "meet me half way". It seemed that I was doing all the work, and when the moment(s) came, in my life, where it was crucial,. . . . . . silence.

Those two things, "scientific evidence/lack of biblical evidence" and "complete detachment of any knowable godly communication" created too much of a dichotomy within me to remain a christian.

I DO hope that someone comes along, within this thread (or another) that will satisfactorily answer your question. It seems low on the probability scale, though.

 

[Steve76]

AAA, . . . evidence is important, as you well know. Evidence AND lack of evidence is what brought me out of christianity. The evidence of the natural world didn't equate to the bible stories I had heard all my life, nor the doctrines that my church so devoutly stood/stands on.

But as I searched for "evidence" of God, while I was a christian, and as I remembered back to my christian past, I had to come to the conclusion that ALL my attempts to "find God" came back with ear splitting . . . silence. It hit me as being very odd that this "loving god" wouldn't at least "meet me half way". It seemed that I was doing all the work, and when the moment(s) came, in my life, where it was crucial,. . . . . . silence.

Those two things, "scientific evidence/lack of biblical evidence" and "complete detachment of any knowable godly communication" created too much of a dichotomy within me to remain a christian.

I DO hope that someone comes along, within this thread (or another) that will satisfactorily answer your question. It seems low on the probability scale, though.

Faith...that's all it takes....a mustard seed of faith.

 

[Orion]

I understand that Steve. But that isn't the way I was raised, or taught. "Faith" alone doesn't save, but must be represented in a changed life, one that completely follows after God and lives to serve him in all aspects of life, or "you don't have a saving faith".

Even so, I have some pretty major issues with what is spoken of God, mostly in the Old Testament, that makes me not have a desire to "have faith in him". It is just another step in my "downfall/backsliding", as my christians friends would call it.

 

[Steve76]

I understand that Steve. But that isn't the way I was raised, or taught. "Faith" alone doesn't save, but must be represented in a changed life, one that completely follows after God and lives to serve him in all aspects of life, or "you don't have a saving faith".

Even so, I have some pretty major issues with what is spoken of God, mostly in the Old Testament, that makes me not have a desire to "have faith in him". It is just another step in my "downfall/backsliding", as my christians friends would call it.

Keep searching Bro! With all your heart, keep searching. That's what I did and I found my proof..
Churches can't save you, people can't save you.. You can save you when you ask our Creator to help you. ;)

That's the formula, work out the equation and you will get the result - proof..

 

[Orion]

That's kinda what I did for years. Still came back with silence for my prayers. The way I see it, . . . I will continue looking for what is true, . . . . . .see my signature line.

 

[Steve76]

That's kinda what I did for years. Still came back with silence for my prayers. The way I see it, . . . I will continue looking for what is true, . . . . . .see my signature line.

Good... But, it's about the heart mate, and God knows when it's not upto the mark. Be sincere, have a word with your Creator and see what He says. He loves you man, but hates your sin.. ;)

Keep looking, don't listen to men, listen to God thru His amazing Word in the Bible..
and whatever puts u off in scripture, open a thread up here and get into it!

 

[Orion]

You mean, just not the immoral/unethical parts, though, right? ;)

 

[Aero_Hudson]

AAA, . . . evidence is important, as you well know. Evidence AND lack of evidence is what brought me out of christianity. The evidence of the natural world didn't equate to the bible stories I had heard all my life, nor the doctrines that my church so devoutly stood/stands on.

But as I searched for "evidence" of God, while I was a christian, and as I remembered back to my christian past, I had to come to the conclusion that ALL my attempts to "find God" came back with ear splitting . . . silence. It hit me as being very odd that this "loving god" wouldn't at least "meet me half way". It seemed that I was doing all the work, and when the moment(s) came, in my life, where it was crucial,. . . . . . silence.

Those two things, "scientific evidence/lack of biblical evidence" and "complete detachment of any knowable godly communication" created too much of a dichotomy within me to remain a christian.

I DO hope that someone comes along, within this thread (or another) that will satisfactorily answer your question. It seems low on the probability scale, though.

I agree that "evidence" is important. However, the kind of "evidence" that most atheists want, based on science or observable reality, is not the definition of "evidence" that faith / God should be judged by.

I could point you to countless books and studies on either side on how the documentation, science, eye witness accounts, etc. point to the existence of God or do not point to the existence of God. However, that's not what is important. Your own discernment and what Steve referred to as searching with your heart is what I truly feel shows us the way. Looking to man made concoctions of faith or science or any thing else is inherently flawed. Sure, we can explain our world in scientific terms as to why the sun rises and sets, as to why the sky is blue to why I cannot perceive my world turning at thousands of miles per hour. The one question that these man made thought processes cannot answer is why we are here. What is the purpose of all of this crap?

Each person on this earth has to answer that for themselves. They can't rely on man made criteria to do so. You can use man made criteria as a method of discerment, sure. But not the method. It all has to be taken into context. What does your heart tell you? Does it tell you there is no underlying point to all of this and we just happened to be here in this fashion on one hell of a ride on this cosmic body called Earth? Or does your heart tell you there has to be a point?

For me, prior to becoming a believer, I had a huge hole where this purpose should be. Something was missing. I tried for 20 years to fill it with something. Video games, playing the guitar, women, running, etc. Nothing ever completely filled it. Once I came to Christ, I found my purpose.

My question to AAA and others like him / her is what is so "intellectually dishonest" in finding a greater purpose in this world that motivates me to love my neighbor and take care of those less fortunate than me? Should my "intellectual honesty" be questioned along side suicide bombers or those that gun down abortion doctors or those that go around telling others they will burn in hell? I think not. I would not judge AAA or others as a common group of atheists. If I did, Stalin and AAA would be kindred spirits and I don't think that is true even in the slightest.

Again, bottom line is I have a purpose...do you? Based on your answer, who's being "intellectually dishonest" now? Peace!

 

[Orion]

Again, as I searched for "purpose", as you called it, and "something to fill that missing piece", I DID call out to God. But as was stated, there was only silence. Now, I have come to the place where, though I am looking, it isn't to "fill a missing part", but just a curiosity of what MAY be. And I have opened myself up to whatever or whomever is TRUE. If that which is TRUE is the most "powerful", and "cares about me enough", logically, it/they should win. If all else is false, then only the real truth will be the victor.

That said, of my 41 years in christianity, I have to say that there hasn't been a lot of push towards "winning me". Even when I was very much into it, . . . there was a nagging silence that often confused me. I made the attempt. Then, as I studied more about the scriptures, and sought out viewpoints, my new view on it has come out, and those new views are why I am the way I am now.

But, no one needs "religion" to do what is right or humane. There are many organizations that feed and clothe the needy that are not religion centered.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Again, as I searched for "purpose", as you called it, and "something to fill that missing piece", I DID call out to God. But as was stated, there was only silence. Now, I have come to the place where, though I am looking, it isn't to "fill a missing part", but just a curiosity of what MAY be. And I have opened myself up to whatever or whomever is TRUE. If that which is TRUE is the most "powerful", and "cares about me enough", logically, it/they should win. If all else is false, then only the real truth will be the victor.

That said, of my 41 years in christianity, I have to say that there hasn't been a lot of push towards "winning me". Even when I was very much into it, . . . there was a nagging silence that often confused me. I made the attempt. Then, as I studied more about the scriptures, and sought out viewpoints, my new view on it has come out, and those new views are why I am the way I am now.

But, no one needs "religion" to do what is right or humane. There are many organizations that feed and clothe the needy that are not religion centered.

A couple of random thoughts based on my limited experience with my new found faith...

- I have come to find that God does not answer us on our terms or through our preferred means. He picks the time and place and the how. I have experienced many moments where I was "answered" but not in the way that I would have expected nor would I have known unless I took a step back to think about it a bit.

- Personally, I think you are approaching it in a sub optimal way. It should not be about God "winning you" over. Whether you believe it or not, God is actively pursuing you now. In my experience, instead of saying that he will find me if and when he wants to find me opening yourself up fully and actively searching for God is the way to find Him. Now, be prepared for it to not be according to your timeline. When I finally opened myself up it took me about a year to truly find what I was looking for.

- When I am talking about purpose I am not talking about what "...is right or humane". Is that a part of it as far as loving your neighbor? Sure. But that is oversimplifying it. God and belief is about so much more than a set of morals and standards to the point where it is even hard for me to put into words.

Thanks for posting back Orion!

 

[Orion]

You're welcome, Aero. I enjoy the conversation.

Anyway, I opened myself up and searched for years. If he isn't working "on my timeline", then what's he waiting for? It seems counterproductive to remain absent and expect me to keep searching for a relationship that never transpires. That goes back to the topic of this thread and how one can detect god. For me, it isn't an "atheistic point of view" that I have. I'm not here in an attempt to say "your god doesn't exist". He may, . . . but hasn't been pursuing me in anyway that translates to ME as being, in any way, real. I'm just being honest with you and everyone else.

Thanks for your post.

 

[AAA]

My question to AAA and others like him / her is what is so "intellectually dishonest" in finding a greater purpose in this world that motivates me to love my neighbor and take care of those less fortunate than me?

Is it intellectually dishonest of me to find a greater purpose in this world through the loving personal relationship I have with Theo the undetectable supernatural one-armed dragon in my garage? He is a good dragon, and he motivates me to love my neighbor and take care of those less fortunate than me, so the consequences of this belief are morally good, but isn't the whole belief system intellectually dishonest, in that I really have no good reason to believe that Theo exists?

Wouldn't it also be intellectually dishonest for me to ignore the fact that many people have committed evil atrocities because of and/or in the name of Theo throughout history?

AH: There are good reasons for loving your neighbor and taking care of those less fortunate than you that don't require you to believe anything on insufficient evidence.

Should my "intellectual honesty" be questioned along side suicide bombers or those that gun down abortion doctors or those that go around telling others they will burn in hell? I think not.

Given what you have so far written, the consequences of your actions are morally good, but the intellectual honesty behind the path that leads you to those actions ought to be considered on par with those of the suicide bombers. You both get to where you are "by faith". That process is equally illegitimate for all of you. You are on no more intellectually firm ground in asserting that Jesus is part of a triune omnipotent creator who answers billions of prayers and will judge our candidacy for eternal hellfire at the time of rapture than the hijackers are in asserting that the infidel must be killed and that doing so pleases Allah & will land them in paradise with endless flows of honey and countless virgins for their pleasure.

I would not judge AAA or others as a common group of atheists. If I did, Stalin and AAA would be kindred spirits and I don't think that is true even in the slightest.

As I wrote earlier, Stalin simply aimed to replace religion with other dogmas. Dogma, which is belief without sufficient evidence, is one path that can lead to evil. I'm against dogma, and that's why its not fair to lump me in with Stalin. As Sam Harris has written: "I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs."

Again, bottom line is I have a purpose...do you? Based on your answer, who's being "intellectually dishonest" now? Peace!

Indeed I do have a purpose to my very fulfilling life, though that purpose cannot be considered on a cosmic scale as I imagine yours can. Of course, that's fine with me. I don't feel any need to be connected to a plan of cosmic or eternal significance since (a) I remain unconvinced of the existence of any such plan, given that there is no reliable way to identify this plan or the planner(s) and (b) I think there's enough going on here and now that is incredible and awe inspiring to fulfill and motivate me (but you obviously haven't met my wife and daughter, nor the patients that I serve...)

 

[Orion]

Indeed I do have a purpose to my very fulfilling life, though that purpose cannot be considered on a cosmic scale as I imagine yours can. Of course, that's fine with me. I don't feel any need to be connected to a plan of cosmic or eternal significance since (a) I remain unconvinced of the existence of any such plan, given that there is no reliable way to identify this plan or the planner(s) and (b) I think there's enough going on here and now that is incredible and awe inspiring to fulfill and motivate me (but you obviously haven't met my wife and daughter, nor the patients that I serve...)

So, I must ask christians, based upon AAA's writing here, . . . is it morally/ethically/justly right that he be punished for having this way of thinking, . . . one that is honest? Same goes for anyone else who shares such thinking. If a person is unable to "have faith", is it worthy of destruction?

 

[Aero_Hudson]

My question to AAA and others like him / her is what is so "intellectually dishonest" in finding a greater purpose in this world that motivates me to love my neighbor and take care of those less fortunate than me?

Is it intellectually dishonest of me to find a greater purpose in this world through the loving personal relationship I have with Theo the undetectable supernatural one-armed dragon in my garage? He is a good dragon, and he motivates me to love my neighbor and take care of those less fortunate than me, so the consequences of this belief are morally good, but isn't the whole belief system intellectually dishonest, in that I really have no good reason to believe that Theo exists?

Wouldn't it also be intellectually dishonest for me to ignore the fact that many people have committed evil atrocities because of and/or in the name of Theo throughout history?

AH: There are good reasons for loving your neighbor and taking care of those less fortunate than you that don't require you to believe anything on insufficient evidence.

[quote="Aero_Hudson":3w4w5521]Should my "intellectual honesty" be questioned along side suicide bombers or those that gun down abortion doctors or those that go around telling others they will burn in hell? I think not.

Given what you have so far written, the consequences of your actions are morally good, but the intellectual honesty behind the path that leads you to those actions ought to be considered on par with those of the suicide bombers. You both get to where you are "by faith". That process is equally illegitimate for all of you. You are on no more intellectually firm ground in asserting that Jesus is part of a triune omnipotent creator who answers billions of prayers and will judge our candidacy for eternal hellfire at the time of rapture than the hijackers are in asserting that the infidel must be killed and that doing so pleases Allah & will land them in paradise with endless flows of honey and countless virgins for their pleasure.

I would not judge AAA or others as a common group of atheists. If I did, Stalin and AAA would be kindred spirits and I don't think that is true even in the slightest.

As I wrote earlier, Stalin simply aimed to replace religion with other dogmas. Dogma, which is belief without sufficient evidence, is one path that can lead to evil. I'm against dogma, and that's why its not fair to lump me in with Stalin. As Sam Harris has written: "I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs."

Again, bottom line is I have a purpose...do you? Based on your answer, who's being "intellectually dishonest" now? Peace!

Indeed I do have a purpose to my very fulfilling life, though that purpose cannot be considered on a cosmic scale as I imagine yours can. Of course, that's fine with me. I don't feel any need to be connected to a plan of cosmic or eternal significance since (a) I remain unconvinced of the existence of any such plan, given that there is no reliable way to identify this plan or the planner(s) and (b) I think there's enough going on here and now that is incredible and awe inspiring to fulfill and motivate me (but you obviously haven't met my wife and daughter, nor the patients that I serve...)[/quote:3w4w5521]

Some thoughts based on your reponses...

- I disagree with your analogy on Theo as well as Dawkins analogy to the spaghetti monster. These beings that were created as a result of your imagination in an attempt to make a point do not compare in the slightest to humanity's inherent longing and need for connection to a greater purpose. You made up these monsters to try and minimize what you feel is the creation of God and the question of his existence. What these "beings" lack is context, history, archeology and a written record dating back thousands of years. These beings also lack eye witness accounts and many other tit for tat points that you and I could no doubt discuss for many long hours over dinner or some drinks. My only point her is how absurd these kinds of analogies are because they ignore the thousands of years of historical evidence, writings, philosophy and other disciplines that should be used to better understand the concept and existence of God. I would agree that you have no good reason to believe Theo exists becaue we both know for a fact that you made Theo up in your head on the fly. We would all agree that we do not "know" this with God and their is much more to discuss and understand in relation to God.

- I am not saying "ignore" motivations behind crimes. What I am saying is let's make sure we do not villify religion as "the" cause of a majority of attrocities committed throughout history. We would all agree that these attrocities and the reasons they are committed are intellectually dishonest and should not be tolerated. This could be said for any belief system or dogma as you referenced. Religion does not have a monopoly on evil acts justified through believe in something.

- Based on your thoughts about arriving to conclusions based on faith and that the intellectual honesty of terrorists and peaceful Christians can be"...considered on par" with each other...completely absurd. We have to separate this a bit in my mind. There is the process people use to come to their faith or lack of it and then how that use that faith or lack of it to make decisions on how to behave in their world. As we have discussed countless times on this board there are intellectually honest methods and criteria that can be used to come to a belief in God. Just because you might disagree with them does not mean they are "intellectually dishonest". We just have an underpinning disagreement on what "evidence" mean and what it should be based upon when pondering the existence of God. That does not make either one of us "intellectually dishonest". Now, I think we would both agree that among other things someone using these beliefs to hurt others around them for whatever reason (i.e. using thier dogma as you put it) is intellectually dishonest. Personally, I think atheists that try to convince others that their faith should be equated with other believers that have murdered and persecuted others throughout history is intellectually dishonest just as much as some believers ranting and raving about hellfires due to lack of belief.

- I think it is great that you are motivated by your family and other things to find purpose in your life. I was referencing something bigger than ourselves and our own personal needs, wants and motivations. You do not believe that there is a greater purpose outside of just each individuals own wants and needs. I do. Bottom line is that this is where we disagree. I choose to be motivated by what I believe is the greater purpose to all of this mess called life and you choose to be focused on your own purpose as you define it. If that works for you as well as me, as long as we are not hurting others around us, go for it.

As always, been a pleasure posting with you. Very stimulating discussions to this point even though I thought I was bailing from the thread. I just can't help but engaged in these kinds of discussions.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Indeed I do have a purpose to my very fulfilling life, though that purpose cannot be considered on a cosmic scale as I imagine yours can. Of course, that's fine with me. I don't feel any need to be connected to a plan of cosmic or eternal significance since (a) I remain unconvinced of the existence of any such plan, given that there is no reliable way to identify this plan or the planner(s) and (b) I think there's enough going on here and now that is incredible and awe inspiring to fulfill and motivate me (but you obviously haven't met my wife and daughter, nor the patients that I serve...)

So, I must ask christians, based upon AAA's writing here, . . . is it morally/ethically/justly right that he be punished for having this way of thinking, . . . one that is honest? Same goes for anyone else who shares such thinking. If a person is unable to "have faith", is it worthy of destruction?

A couple of thoughts...

- I don't think anyone is "unable" to have faith.

- It is not up to me or other Christians to determine what is ethically and morally right from a judgement standpoint. It's up to God.

- I think this is the wrong question. We should not be focusing on what happens after we die. We should be focused on the here and now and what we do from the non believers standpoint to make the world a better place and from the believer's standpoint to bring the Kingdom of God to Earth right now.

Thanks!

 

[Orion]

Aero, I must respectfully disagree that it is "up to God", and not for you to decide. This is very important, because what WE determine as "moral" or "ethical" treatment is often at odds with what christian doctrine teaches about God. If you are a moral and ethical person, you could only conclude that a person is NOT "justly tortured", simply for a "lack of belief". Either God is NOT moral/ethical, or we [humanity] have completely gotten it wrong.

It is said that "God cannot abide with iniquity", . . . but is that even true? If God is everywhere [omnipresent], then he already does. If he "makes an audience with Satan" and has a conversation with this being, yet Satan doesn't get burned away during the exchange, . . . then how true can "cannot abide with iniquity" be? I realize this is a huge side step in this thread and may need to be a thread all its own.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Aero, I must respectfully disagree that it is "up to God", and not for you to decide. This is very important, because what WE determine as "moral" or "ethical" treatment is often at odds with what christian doctrine teaches about God. If you are a moral and ethical person, you could only conclude that a person is NOT "justly tortured", simply for a "lack of belief". Either God is NOT moral/ethical, or we [humanity] have completely gotten it wrong.

It is said that "God cannot abide with iniquity", . . . but is that even true? If God is everywhere [omnipresent], then he already does. If he "makes an audience with Satan" and has a conversation with this being, yet Satan doesn't get burned away during the exchange, . . . then how true can "cannot abide with iniquity" be? I realize this is a huge side step in this thread and may need to be a thread all its own.

I believe that God created us in his own image. I think that is why most of humanity has an inate feeling as to what is moral and what is not. So when I say it is up to God I probably should have been more clear. We have the ability to discern a lot of that ourselves based on just being human and one of God's creatures. On the more contentious issues, you will get some varying opinions on what our guide should be from believers. Some will say that the Bible is the ultimate authority and should not be questioned. Others will tell you that we can use the Bible as a guide but often times we must discern the historical context of the information provided and try not to be so black and white with our determinations. Both answers cause controversy in their own right in and out of Christian circles.

I agree with you on the other issue...should be its own thread and not discussed here.