Religion is for cowards and pedophiles of childrens minds

It seems like we are disagreeing on something superficial instead of actually addressing the points that are raised.

 

It's not what I would like it to mean, look it up for yourself, it's what it actually means.

Perhaps who ever quoted Einstein, misquoted him or maybe Einstein himself didn't know the difference; he was, after all, a physicist not a linguist.

As for your high-lighting unlimited:
Omnipotent: possessing complete, unlimited, or universal power and authority
Omniscient: knowing or seeming to know everything

If you will note it modifies universal power and authority and in of itself, says nothing about the person’s knowledge.

 

I have a feeling this is what Christianity was supposed to be, but years of translation, interpretation, and twisting by the power hungry have made it what it is today. As a Christian, I do indeed try to follow this. I don't push my beliefs on others either, and I have actually struggled for some time with the question of whether or not to introduce my children (when they are born) to religion. However, I was brought up Christian, and while I still consider myself to be a worshiper of God, it's certainly not the bloodthirsty asshole everyone seems to refer to when they attack Christianity... It's called thinking for yourself- realizing that we may be wrong about absolutely everything, making peace with that, believing what you will and leaving everyone else alone.

 

Thanx, didn’t understand the reference, I thought you were saying that a dictator had to pay people to shun their neighbors.

Anyway, a totalitarian dictatorship does not necessarily have to be as you describe. With a kind and benevolent dictator the people would not have to chafe under his rule and may even want to be obedient to the rules of their country without the need for force.

In such a country, the government would be effective and efficient, because was the world and circumstances change, one person can quickly make the changes so that the country can keep up with it rather than waiting for some legislative body to vote on it or waiting for some financial or cultural changes to change the direction of the country.

 

Only slightly. I wanted to use an Illustration that would be more effective if you did but no matter.

You had said:

You seem to be talking about God as if he was some insecure aloof angry dictator.

The truth is he’s more like a father, as Jesus said; our father in heaven and if you draw close to him he will draw close to you.

As a father you would be upset if your children didn’t listen to you and then got hurt, wouldn’t you?

As for the consequences of not believing, let’s say as a father, you tell your children not to play in the street and your children for what ever reason, don’t believe you, perhaps they think that you just want the street all for yourself and so play in the street anyway.

While doing so they get hit by a car. The father didn’t plan for the car to hit them!

And what’s your reaction? Do you ignore them and say it serves them right? Do you run out to the street and pull out your belt and whip them as they lie there?

No, Good fathers don’t do these things. They would go to the child and comfort them the best they can and may never even say I told you so.

But the child may gain a new fear or respect for what their father tells them from then on. Mankind for the most part doesn’t, they continue on disobeying their heavenly father and wonder why they live unbearable lives and wonder why God doesn’t make their lives more bearable.

Then go on to say that God doesn’t exist because they continue to live unbearable lives.

God gave us free will at great expense to himself and will not take that away just because we make bad choices.

He even took the time to tell us what the good choices are but we tell him those choices are too confining and to make the bad choices good as well.

I little like asking God to redesign the universe so I can continue to hit myself in the head with a hammer and it won’t hurt or do any damage and God saying why don’t you just stop hitting yourself in the head with the hammer?

 

Well that is a fairly common portrayal of Him, even in the Bible. The only part I'd dispute is "dictator", since He rarely bothers to "dictate".

Well, that's a very specifically Christian angle on God. From the basic notion of God as a creator (and really, I don't need a god for anything OTHER than to explain why the universe is there - I don't need moral guidance from on high as long as I have the Brothers Grimm to help me out), I don't see much reason for God to care what we do. If he invented Free Will, and if he is omniscient, he probably would've seen the felix culpa coming.

It does seem to mirror my relationship history though! I always find that, if someone seems unconditionally in love with me, the first thing I do is to act like a jerk. If they still love me, I feel like their love is less valuable somehow. What I drew from the garden of Eden story is: God wants us to prove that we'd love him even if he was a dick to us.

 

I tend to avoid humanizing portrayals of God.

 

I figure it's all we've got to go on.

 

well, we've got perfection.

whatever that means.

 

It is a common portrayal him but only by those who don't know him.

 

As I pointed out God cares because we are his children. I know that among men now days that doesn’t mean much but to God it does.

We’ve already had this discussion. If you remember I said that God’s omniscience is controllable much like his omnipotence. That he has the ability to use as much or as little as he wants to accomplish his purposes.

So to allow man to have free will he restricts his knowing what individuals will do, thus he did not know what Adam and Eve would do and so they are responsible for their own actions.

God does not want you to prove your love to him, he just wants you to love him for who he is but he will not force you.

God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed and in fact, out of love, gave them the ability to enjoy life in ways they did not need to have. Yet they turned their backs on God and said they could do without him. To which he said; fine, go and make the world the paradise you want. The result is the world you see around you. Personally I think we could have done better with God's help.

 

I remember a discussion along these lines. I don't think I agreed with you that what's described above made much sense though.

Yeah, to be honest, it kind of conflicts with the notion of God as a good father, doesn't it? You screw up once, and he kicks you out? Seems pretty harsh. And re the part I've emboldened, I think you're reading things into a myth that aren't there.

 

I'm wondering about your faith, to be honest. You seem to be a very selective Christian. There are numerous references to God's wrath and jealousy. It's not like people are just seeing what they want to see. I mean, fair enough, you can believe whatever you want, but it's two different things to have your own interpretation of the Word and to suggest ignorance of those who don't share it.

 

I don't recall saying you agreed with me, just that we've already had this discussion.

Whether you think it makes sense or not, it is one way in which we can have free will and God can be omniscient at the same time.

Actually, no it doesn't. First they were adult humans not children and had their full mental facilties to make decisions. Second, he didn't kick them out so much as they thought they knew better than him what is good or bad for them and he basicly said okay see what you can do.

First, can you be sure it's a myth? Second, perhaps you are not reading what's really there?

 

Thanks for your concern and I don’t have my own interpretation as you suggest, I let the Bible interpret itself.

If the first time you met someone and he was angry, that man could be rightly described as angry and you might even think of him as a wrathful and angry man.

But let's say you take the time to get to know this man and you find that he is the kindest gentlest mild tempered man you've ever met. You also find out that the time he was angry, he was justified in being angry, and in fact you get a little angry just thinking about what made him angry.

Now which is the true picture of the man? Your first impression of him being an angry and wrathful man or your second impression of him being a kind gentle mild tempered man?

People who don't take the time to get to know God and sift though the scriptures looking only for where the Bible says he was angry or wrathful, point and say look an angry wrathful God, how can you worship him?

But a person who takes the time to get to know God, who reads and tries to understand the whole Bible and not just the parts that seem to support their personal agenda, have come to know a God who's main quality is love, not anger and hatred

 

The Bible is a book and can't interpret itself.

It needs a reader.

 

He could have meant that a certain inevitable interpretation will come from the Bible by a person that has a deeper understanding of who God is. That there are messages being expressed by the Bible, and that it is up to us to figure out what that is exactly through our knowledge.

 

Thanx.

 

For most books, that is definitely true but some people actually believe the Bible is written by God and for the discerning reader the Bible will interpret itself.

 

I think that this is simply a way to undermine people who don't interpret it the same as you.

I've read passages and had thoughts about them, only to have Christians tell me that I wasn't reading it right.

It's really just a slight of hand to be honest. "I've got God on my side but you don't, so therefor my interpretation is right and yours is wrong."