And, he knew they were innocent (like a three year old with a burning glass and an anthill).

"innocent" by whose definition?

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

I'm surprised that there is a thread about religion on gamedev. Why did the OP post this here?

Please tell me you're joking. Sorry, but by your own belief system you've been given free will above all other creatures to MAKE A CHOICE. To judge. It's moral cowardice to suggest that if god does something we cannot judge him.

Please show me where it says we can judge God. Making a choice != the right to judge God. Yes, we can choose to do whatever we want, follow God or not, but we are not in a position to judge him. We're just not qualified.

1Cr 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

The term "act of god" has come to mean an amoral event, usually a natural disaster. We can't judge this because there is no intent behind it. But if you believe there is a moral reason behind such acts you must judge the perpetrators intent.

Again, you're proving my point. The human definition of "moral" is not applicable to God.

Rom 3:10, Rom 3:23

Quotes from a Zealot's letters written after he turned his coat at some point. Mind you, before calling himself "apostle", the very same guy used to hunt down Christian followers. Scribblings from such a person (whether they were later declared "canon" or not) hardly make for a reliable source, especially for a situation roughly 1000-1200 years before his time.

Though your objection somewhat coincides with the "sola fide" idea, which however in my opinion is more than debatable. According to "sola fide", you're lost anyway from the beginning, since the whole of mankind is cursed, and nothing you do in your life is worth a crap or has any bearing. Whether or not you go to heaven solely depends on whether you accept Jesus as your saviour at the moment of your death (which will cause him to take your sins). Which is a truly great concept, as you can live in sin and against all commandments for your entire life, as long as you don't forget to turn your coat with your last breath. How convenient. :-)

This started because someone said the old testament god was a bully, sadist, etc, etc, etc... You countered saying that it was only when taken out of context. I provided context, and your only defense against the old testament god being all of those things described is we cannot understand god's actions. If you believe the bible to be infallible, it describes exactly why God did what he did to the Egyptians and that was to prove how powerful he is which is consistent with the description of god being a petty bully.

I agree that he is not as forgiving as in the new testament, but he is not a sadomasochistic blood thirsty terrorist. Anybody who has actually read the Bible instead of listening to someone talk about the Bible would know this.

The concept of "heaven" had not been invented at that time (neither the conception of hades in Luke that was probably "borrowed" from the Greek), so all these people could expect after death at that time was "sheol", a place where the dead were said to be "remote from the light of God" (whatever that means, but surely it doesn't mean "love and joy"), regardless of whether they had been good or bad.

I didn't say heaven.

But on thinking again, I can't see anything wrong with believing that God would have taken their spirits to be in union with him.

Please show me where it says we can judge God. Making a choice != the right to judge God. Yes, we can choose to do whatever we want, follow God or not, but we are not in a position to judge him. We're just not qualified.

Why do we need to be qualified in order to judge something?

'Machaira' said:

Please show me where it says we can judge God. Making a choice != the right to judge God. Yes, we can choose to do whatever we want, follow God or not, but we are not in a position to judge him. We're just not qualified.

Why do we need to be qualified in order to judge something?

Well, we can judge all we want, but it's basically meaningless. Kind of like my 10 year old son judging whether or not the test results of a quantum physicist are correct.

'superpig' said:

'Machaira' said:

Please show me where it says we can judge God. Making a choice != the right to judge God. Yes, we can choose to do whatever we want, follow God or not, but we are not in a position to judge him. We're just not qualified.

Why do we need to be qualified in order to judge something?

Well, we can judge all we want, but it's basically meaningless. Kind of like my 10 year old son judging whether or not the test results of a quantum physicist are correct.

There are lots of mistakes that could be visible in the test results of a quantum physics experiment that your 10 year old son could spot. For example, say one of the sets of results measures the velocity of a particular particle. If one result amidst the column of numbers is recorded as 'banana,' I imagine your 10 year old could point that out as being at least questionable.


What makes a judgement 'meaningful,' and why does it matter whether a judgement is 'meaningful' or not?

"innocent" by whose definition?

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

And that right there is the primary thing I find disgusting about the Christian religion and it's zealots. It doesn't matter if you're a good person or not, the only thing that determines whether you go to heaven or not is if you have been "saved" by zombie Jesus. I guess that works for them because there are a lot of Christian who are NOT good people and NOT Christlike in any fashion. They are bigoted homophobes who will not try to understand any concept outside of their narrow world view. Yet they are confident in their place in heaven because they are "saved", while the atheist humanitarian who is dedicating their life to helping others is going to burn in hell for eternity.

For all you non-bigoted Christians who know it's not their place to judge other peoples actions, hate the sin, love the sinner, etc... You rock! It takes a lot better person to be accepting of someone you consider to be a sinner and help and befriend them without judgement.

[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]

'Machaira' said:

Rom 3:10, Rom 3:23

Quotes from a Zealot's letters written after he turned his coat at some point. Mind you, before calling himself "apostle", the very same guy used to hunt down Christian followers. Scribblings from such a person (whether they were later declared "canon" or not) hardly make for a reliable source, especially for a situation roughly 1000-1200 years before his time.

Though your objection somewhat coincides with the "sola fide" idea, which however in my opinion is more than debatable. According to "sola fide", you're lost anyway from the beginning, since the whole of mankind is cursed, and nothing you do in your life is worth a crap or has any bearing. Whether or not you go to heaven solely depends on whether you accept Jesus as your saviour at the moment of your death (which will cause him to take your sins). Which is a truly great concept, as you can live in sin and against all commandments for your entire life, as long as you don't forget to turn your coat with your last breath. How convenient. :-)

You're forgetting that the bible is an "infallible" document and since it was divinely inspired, it cannot possibly be wrong. You're trying to use reason on a zealot, it's simply not going to work.[size=2]

[size=2]I agree that he is not as forgiving as in the new testament, but he is not a sadomasochistic blood thirsty terrorist. Anybody who has actually read the Bible instead of listening to someone talk about the Bible would know this.

[size=2]Then please, tell me how you define a terrorist. If some Islamic group (I'm using Islam here because I'm sure as a Christian conservative you have an unhealthy fear of teh muslims!) created a virus that magically killed the first born of every family in the USA except those of other Islamics[size=2], would that be a terrorist act? If a human did all of the actions that the god of the old testament did, would he accurately fit the description provided by Dawkins?

Original sin was a brilliant move by the early Church. It's not enough to be a good person, you now have to be a member of the church, and get their forgiveness (often for a fee) before you're given a gold stamp for heaven. If it wasn't there, you wouldn't have to give money to the church, just live your life in a Christ like fashion and you'd be good to go.