Why does god ignore religious wars?

Originally posted by TheBadBishop
Im responding to the original post and just for some context I'm a Christian.

What you said about some religions being messed up - I couldnt agree more. The very fact that people would kill for their religion proves that. An example, fundamental christians in the middle east (not that there are very many of them🙂 ) go out and kill people of other re ...[text shortened]... back then, and now. So why send another Son to be cruicfied? it wouldn't acheive anything.

The problem I see there is this: if god is omnipotent, it would have known in advance the whole venture was an exercise in futility. Therefore it says that god is not omnipotent. You can't have it both ways. 2000 years of religious violence is the result. It wasn't just the one man dying on the cross, now it's literally millions. A real god could not possibly condone that.
If god so loved the world he sent his only begotten son then it was a colossal failure.

She doesn't ignore them, and you have no evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
She doesn't ignore them, and you have no evidence to the contrary.

Evidence? You don't consider millions of dead people of EVERY faith evidence of being ignored? Not only ignored but non-existent. If people of EVERY faith get killed then something is terribly wrong with the entire concept of religion. It would seem, assuming there is this so-called god you all speak of so reverently, it doesn't matter much which religion you are, someone will kill you because of it. You should seriously reconsider your blind faith in such an insane god, if it exists at all. I rather think not, that explains EVERYTHING.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The ability of humans to rationalize away evidence like this to fit the pre-conceived dogma is astounding. Fight to the death if our leader says it comes from god, but there is nothing wrong with that concept according to most christians or islamists either for that matter. Both religions worship the god of Abraham but members of either group have no compu ...[text shortened]... is an undeniable fact. Yet your god says in some instances not only is it allowed but commanded.

I think we agree more than you know. I would NEVER "fight to the death if my leader said it comes from God". Our "leader" at the moment is George Bush and I wouldn't lift a slingshot if he told me Satan himself was walking down Pennsylvania Avenue. God would have to tell [i] me [/], in no uncertain terms, before i'd suit up and dig a foxhole. And it would have to be something definitive--no whisper in a dream. I would need a big post-it note the size of Kansas, handed down from heaven.
But anyway-- I hope that clears up this notion that all Christians will fight if someone tells them it's God's will, etc. That's just rubbish.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Evidence? You don't consider millions of dead people of EVERY faith evidence of being ignored? Not only ignored but non-existent. If people of EVERY faith get killed then something is terribly wrong with the entire concept of religion. It would seem, assuming there is this so-called god you all speak of so reverently, it doesn't matter much which religion y ...[text shortened]... aith in such an insane god, if it exists at all. I rather think not, that explains EVERYTHING.

There's no question about that. But you're talking about the errors of people that profess to know some ineffable being that you presume to judge because she is letting us hang ourselves.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
There's no question about that. But you're talking about the errors of people that profess to know some ineffable being that you presume to judge because she is letting us hang ourselves.

I think this ineffable being, if there is one, is setting us up for a fall, kinda like with the dinosaurs but not quite so violent like. Letting us do all the dirty work, end result, the same. Another failed attempt at intelligence.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem I see there is this: if god is omnipotent, it would have known in advance the whole venture was an exercise in futility. Therefore it says that god is not omnipotent. You can't have it both ways. 2000 years of religious violence is the result. It wasn't just the one man dying on the cross, now it's literally millions. A real god could not possib ...[text shortened]... hat.
If god so loved the world he sent his only begotten son then it was a colossal failure.

first, what you are arguing is omniscience not omnipotence. a mixup there.

jesus gave a message of love and peace. it is irrelevant that humans are so messed up that they perverted this message in "burn the witches, kill the pagans and the heretics, have slaves coz God says it's ok, teach creationism in schools."

God did his part. He saw his ten comandments being scrwd by the jews, saw that the religion was seemingly designed only for the jewish people so he sent his son with a universal message and religion. What we choose to do with this message is our fault, our responsibility.

By your argument, one could argue that God is evil just because he gave us free will and allowed us to do evil.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
By your argument, one could argue that God is evil just because he gave us free will and allowed us to do evil.

Exactly. She gave us free will and a long leash. Now how many wives and girlfriends will imitate this element of the behavior of Goddess?

According to one story—

Adam and Eve had been imbued with “free will” (the ability to make choices) before they had any knowledge of good (tov) and bad (ra)—so they were incapable of any moral discernment whatsoever, including whether disobedience was a badder or a gooder thing for humans than obedience. They wouldn’t even know if “death” was a bad thing or a good thing. They may have been frightened by the threatening tone of God’s voice—and wondered what that as all about.

Then he let the undeveloped children loose to play in the street where serpents were crawling around . . .

If God was omniscient, then he (or she) knew what would happen; at least he knew what might happen.

If God is not to blame for the outcome, neither are the children.

In that story, anyway.

Originally posted by vistesd
According to one story—

Adam and Eve had been imbued with “free will” (the ability to make choices) before they had any knowledge of good (tov) and bad (ra)—so they were incapable of any moral discernment whatsoever, including whether disobedience was a badder or a gooder thing for humans than obedience. They wouldn’t even know if “ ...[text shortened]... .

If God is not to blame for the outcome, neither are the children.

In that story, anyway.

Only in the logic of your corrupt and perverse system of thought where you think with your puny human mind that you can judge Goddess.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I just read the history of the religious wars following the edicts of Martin Luther, directly responsible for the deaths of 1/3 of the population of Germany in the mid 1600's.

Directly responsible?

Originally posted by vistesd
According to one story—

Adam and Eve had been imbued with “free will” (the ability to make choices) before they had any knowledge of good (tov) and bad (ra)—so they were incapable of any moral discernment whatsoever, including whether disobedience was a badder or a gooder thing for humans than obedience. They wouldn’t even know if “ ...[text shortened]... .

If God is not to blame for the outcome, neither are the children.

In that story, anyway.

I'm interested, must 'tov' and 'ra' refer to moral good and bad? Could they not refer to aesthetic judgements of good and bad instead? I'm not advancing that is an alternative reading, just wondering...

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'm interested, must 'tov' and 'ra' refer to moral good and bad? Could they not refer to aesthetic judgements of good and bad instead? I'm not advancing that is an alternative reading, just wondering...

Ah. tov and ra refer to good and bad generally. For example, the Hebrew salute: “Mazel tov!” just means “good luck!”.

So, you are absolutely correct: they represent whatever we can say “good” or “bad” about—they do not at all necessarily imply (though they include as well) moral good and bad. So aesthetic goodness or badness would presumably be included as well.

NOTE: The English word “evil” did not originally refer strictly to moral badness either. If one said, “That is an evil smell”—they just meant that it was an unpleasant or offensive smell.

One cannot just simply read these texts with the connotations and conventions of modern English, and say that is what they mean. And yet, that is what many seem to do.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Only in the logic of your corrupt and perverse system of thought where you think with your puny human mind that [b]you can judge Goddess.[/b]

I’ve been trying for a snappy comeback, but I’m laughing too hard. I know you from way back, remember, Wule?

Okay . . . catches breath . . . Need to play the game here . . . For Wule . . . (who kinda cheated by editing away his “Revelations” reference) . . .


Oh the havoc played by our paltry minds,
when once we might believe that even minds
foreshortened in their knowledgeable reach
might still pretend sometimes to something know.
Better, it seems, to naysay ev’rything
we might come to think for any reason,
than to risk the season of goddess’ wrath.