Eldritch

This will sound horrible, but then, the religion is essentially horrible.

Most, maybe all, Christian denominations that I've ever heard of share this belief: If a child dies, then it goes to heaven. Whether it be Catholics and baptism, or Protestants and belief in the innocence of a child, there are provisions that allow for a child too young to be able to "give their life to Jesus" to still go to heaven.

So, why would good Christian parents not smother their children in their cribs? They would sacrifice their own ticket to heaven, but would insure that their children would only grow up in a perfect and blissfully happy place.

Do they not love their children enough? Or is it that, deep down, they actually realize how crazy these claims really are?

Now, for all you out there that want to blast me for advocating infanticide, know this: I do not now, nor will ever, advocate such a thing. I am trying to get you to think about the absurdities of what you have been taught. So, go on. Show me you can think.

And found out that Judas was having second thoughts about betraying Jesus, would you urge him to go through with it? I mean, according to your religion, the betrayal HAD to happen, right?

Would you do what you could to save Jesus from being crucified? Or would you just go along with it like the Jews and Romans did?

Is this right?

There have been, and still are, countries or cultures where it is permissible, or downright required, for a person to be put to death for nothing more than disagreeing with the powers that be.

Do any of us consider this a good thing?

Yet, here in the western world, the majority of us adhere to this very principle. We just remove responsibility from ourselves to a "higher power," and instead of death, it's torture for eternity.

So someone explain to me, how is this justice?

How can capital punishment for mere disagreement be an abhorrent thing, yet a fate worse than death for mere disbelief is considered part of a virtuous system?

A hypothetical situation:

There is a leader of a country, who makes himself leader for life, and crafts this law:

"15 years from now, all citizens must decide to agree with my government and it's policies, or else they will be sent to prison. They will be in this prison for the rest of their lives, and will be tortured every day."

This leader is actually a good one in most respects. He is good on the economy, foreign relations, crime, etc. He had a son who was in the military and died defending the country.

His justification for this law is that he is giving plenty of time for people to decide if they want to comply with the law, and is not forcing anyone to agree with his government... but there are definite consequences for not agreeing.

He says that, even though the citizens did not choose which country to be born in, and did not elect him as leader... they must agree with him or else be removed from society.

Would you be happy to defend this leader and his law?

Straight to Jesus, or just there in the ground?

Ecclesiastes 9:5 - For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

2 Corinthians 5:5-8 - We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord... Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.

******************************

Is the NT verse not talking about death? Maybe we can all have out of body experiences and spend an afternoon with Mr. J!

But if that's true and the OT verse is right, I guess we don't go straight to heaven or hell when we die.

Or is there some nice rationalization that can be used to just shove aside the old testament so a passage in the NT doesn't contradict? Hmmm...

An earlier question asked if people in heaven would remember loved ones that didn't make it. Many answered that you simply wouldn't remember.

So does this mean that god will force you to forget? Isn't that an invasion of the worst kind? In a sense, a raping of the mind? How is that free will?

In the same vein, will people that are after the second coming (there will still be births right?) have the potential to sin? Or will god get rid of the possibility? If you say yes, then why did god allow sin in the first place? Why give free will at one point, let us suffer, then take it away later?

To me, it sounds like he was bored... but then will someday decide we went through enough and will cancel the drama. Hmmm, maybe he'll even be nice enough to let us stick around and watch the next round of fun. He did it for the angels right?

Think about it. Let's say you're the most upstanding, bible-abiding Christian around (as an example). You should have much more to worry in your life than an atheist or agnostic.

You already base your life around the idea that there is some higher power out there that judges you. And the bible is so full of holes that every Christian I have ever had a discussion with has to use the idea of faith to defend their belief in it.

Well, when all you have is faith with nothing concrete to back it up, then you have no more of a "correct" position than a Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Shintoist, or pastafarian (arrrr!).

So if you still cling to a belief in a Judgemental god, then how do you know that you picked the right belief system? According to your own dogma, if you're wrong, then there's something pretty crappy waiting for you. Right? Shouldn't you be pretty worried about that?

In many questions I see many answers from Christians that go something like this: "That was the old testament and the old ways/laws/customs for the Jews. Jesus came and got rid of all that."

So, my question is, how do you decide what in the OT to keep? Every time someone brings up something horrible in the OT, a slew of Christians will say it doesn't matter. But these are the actions of the same god you profess to follow.

Judges 11:29-40: Human sacrifice, accepted by god.

2 Kings 2:23-24 : Childred killed just for teasing a prophet.

2 Samuel 6:3-7: A man killed trying to PROTECT god's ark.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14: Just one example of a command to murder a community and keep the virgins for sex slaves.

This is the tip of the iceberg. And these are not laws or customs, these are direct commands of the god that Christians profess to follow. So, if you want to spout things like the 10 commandments or creation story, why do the above verses not also count?

What do you have to show that your version of god exists instead of someone elses? Let's pick one at random that is currently followed: Vishnu, a Hindu god.

What proof do you have that your god exists and theirs doesn't?

Faith? 'Cause they have that just as much as you.

The Bible? Well, the only parts that can be proven from it are the historical documentation aspects... not the theological aspects.

Miracles? Still gotta show that it's not Vishnu performing them.

Prophecy? Because those are so amibguous, open-ended, and subject to wild speculation that three different people will give you three different "fulfillments" of them.

So why do you think your god exists and none others? Do you think that, if you were born and raised in India in a Hindu family, yet were still told all about the biblical god... would you be a Christian?

Because nine times out of ten, your geographic region determines your lifelong religion. Doesn't this say something to you?

I saw this one and felt that it very cleary and accurately summed up a typical atheist's position:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wb3-dN-5lw&mode=re...

Then I saw this one. It seemed to me that this pretty much summed up a typical Christian's position:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm1JYYIk-pI&NR=1

Note that I said "typical." I know that opinions vary widely... but for now I'm speaking in generalities.

What do you think? If you're an atheist (or non-believer), or a Christian (or general theist), do you agree with the stances shown in the videos?

Prime example: The story of Abraham pleading with god to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if there were 5 (If I remember right) good people there.

Didn't god know for a fact that the cities wouldn't be spared since he is omniscient? Was he just toying with Abraham?

I mean really, there's Abraham, sitting at his tent, hoping Lot wouldn't be killed... all the while, god is planning on smiting the hell out of Sodom and Gomorrah. It even stands to reason that when Abraham finally did find out what happened to the city, he would be even more heartbroken since he would assume that Lot died (seeing has how Lot was doing.. um.. "things" with his daughters in a cave somewhere, and no one knew they were alive).

This would be much more of an emotional blow after allowing himself to hope; which could have been avoided if god just gave it to him straight right from the start.

I got the banana thing down, but now I need to know... what is god's plan for me in reference to the pineapple?

I have to discover the truth, so this question is for Kirk Cameron only! If you aren't Kirk Cameron, I call on God to curse you and your offspring unto ten generations!

What if the doctor is an atheist, and absolutely says that he doesn't believe in god, and he wouldn't want help from a god even if they were around?

If you still believe that god is working through him, then doesn't that mean god is taking away the doctor's freedom of choice since he flat out said that he wants no help from god?

Or is it just a metaphor or poetic license to say that god was working through the doctor? If so, then why say it if it means nothing?

Oh, and this scenario is assuming that the patient, or anyone the patient knows, is NOT praying what-so-ever.

It seems like, in the biggest global debates, the majority of energy is spent just trying to prove that god exists; let alone that one particular version of it is the acutal truth.

It just seems to me that it used to be that an atheist was a very rare thing, that no one questioned that SOME version of god existed.

But polytheism has largely given way to monotheism... and now monotheism is being picked apart by atheism. From what I can tell, more and more people are either watering down their religion (I.E. not believing the bible is literally true), not bothering to claim a religion, or are becoming outright atheists.

(Just so no one can accuse me of being ambivalent, ... I think this is a good thing)

What do you think? Let's say the rapture/apocalypse/ragnarok/whatever, never happens. Can you see theism disappearing eventually? I'm not asking if you wish it to be so or not, I'm asking if you think things are heading in that direction.

Seriously?

How many couples, when they first find out that they are going to be parents, say to themselves "Oh I'm so happy! Well, time to set up that torture chamber, just in case the little tyke doesn't want to listen to our rules."

Or, did god not make hell? If so, how can something exist that god didn't make?

Or, option 3: It's all a bunch of crazy bulls***, designed to induce fear and keep control of the masses.

I'm sorry, there is no way the concept of eternal torture and damnation jibes with a omnibenevolent being. Rationalize it all you want, it just doesn't work.

A purely hypothetical U.S. election for president, and these are the 2 candidates:

A.) A former Senator who did wonders for the economy of his

home state, is well loved overseas, is peace minded but won't hesitate to use the military if it is truly called for,made bills that both reduced crime and strengthened the middle class... but wants to keep Church and state totally seperate. No "under god" in the pledge, no Intelliegent design in public schools, no 10 commandments on government property, no marriage amendment. He is an agnostic that feels religion should be a personal choice.

B.) A former governor who was indicted numerous times, had

3 admitted affairs, it was discovered that he used cocaine all through his 20s, his state's economy is in the toilet, and he has been heard numerous times spouting racist remarks... but he wants ID taught in public shools, wants marriage to be only man + woman, wants to use tax dollars to spread Christianity to 3rd world nations.

I don't know if it's heart burn, acid reflux, or what; but I randomly get these (I think) gastric attacks where there's a pressure build up in my chest that last anywhere from 3-5 hours, and then leaves fairly abruptly.

It usually, but not always, only happens if I've eaten something after 7:00.

It's a steady dull pain that is slightly relieved if I sit up, so I can't lay down and sleep.

I can feel it start in the evening, and always gets full blown after I go to bed.

I tried Pepto, tums, rolaids, and even ibuprofin; none of which helped. Twice it has caused me to vomit, which also provided no relief.

The only thing that helps is Prilosec. When I'm on the 14 day treatment, it never happens; but once I stop, it will start again.

And it happens about twice a week on average.

Any ideas about what I can do? (can't go to the doctor, since I am without health insurance for another few months).

Is there an OTC medicine that works better than Prilosec?

Thanks :)

I've heard many times that all the evil in the world is because of Satan and the Fall. But the world is, by and large, a harsh place. Is everything someone would consider bad, or even non-ideal, the work of Satan?

Do you think the devil suddenly made animals carnivorous,

allowed fire to be able to spread uncontrollably,

opened the earth to blows from asteroids,

introduced defective genes that caused mental retardation,

removed resistance to harsh radiation,

tweaked bacteria so it can adapt and resist antibiotics,

...and this is all just the tip of the iceberg.

Or was it just sin in general, and not specifically the devil? If so, how did "sin" get this magic ability? Wouldn't it have to have been god that gave sin this power, since, supposedly, nothing exists that god didn't create?

Or did god create a harsh world, and then just remove his protection as a punishment for Adam and Eve sinning? Doesn't that make him both capricious, and outright unfair?

Seeing as how there are over a million species of insect, the vast majority of which are not oceanic, and there had to be 2 of each species; the freakin' boat must have been crawling with them!

And that's just insects. That's not counting freshwater crustaceans, spiders, snakes, rodents.

*shudder*

Hmmm, come to think of it, wouldn't they, along with all the other animals, have eaten all the food stored up long before 150 days were over?

Uh, oh.. now I'm starting to think, maybe the global flood story doesn't make sense!