Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Question For Everyone.
Posted by: Guest Feb 19 2004, 10:17 PM
Ok i would just like to pose a hypothetical question for the non-christians here....this is not a loaded question, i am not trying to evoke a certain response, i just want to know....this is purely investigative.
Imagine if you will that you have just died, and find yourself (surprise!) before Jesus Christ. He looks at you, and you know at once all that he represents, beyond all the misconceptions--love, joy, peace, but also eternal commitment. In order to follow him, you must give up your authority to him. Thus, he gives you a choice--a second chance. Choose him, give up yourself, some of your "freedoms", if you will, to follow him. Or, you could choose to be your own master, do things the way you want, let your own self be your god....and no, by choosing this your are not sentenced to eternal flame and burning and torture. Instead, you are simply granted your wish--eternal seperation from God. No interaction with him whatsoever.
Also, let us presume that God makes it infinately clear to you that he is perfectly good. The ultimate good. Everything about God condoning rape/murder/etc. is just misconceptions, and he really truely is good, it's just that he requires something of you, actually, all of you, and in order to do that you must give up your authority over yourself to God.
So....given that hypothetical choice after you die, and presuming that hypothetically everyone would get this choice....what would you choose to do?
Posted by: Sanguine Feb 19 2004, 10:29 PM
Well I cannot forsee many people having a problem with following at that point, because you would actually have real proof, rather than 2000 year old fable that has been passed down, mistranslated, misused etc.
Personally I'll take non-existence, eternity is such a boring concept. (I know you didn't list it as an option, but I'm being honest, and plus we're supposed to be dealing with omnipotence here)
Posted by: Erik the Awful Feb 19 2004, 10:46 PM
If I became convinced at any point, either before or after death, that Jesus/God was the embodiment of love, truth and goodness, I'd worship in a heartbeat. I don't want to be disconnected from such a God. That's one of the things that makes deconversion so difficult for me.
But the more I examine the evidence, the more I conclude that this God was created by people, and doesn't really exist. I would SO love to be wrong.
Posted by: ericf Feb 19 2004, 10:59 PM
I actually answered this question (in a form) on this board before. I would choose eternal seperation without hesitation. I do not want eternity in either heaven or hell -- being that both seem pretty equal to me. The only way that heaven could appeal to me was after a lobotomy; since I don't want that nothingness would be my choice.
So what if your eternal seperation isn't nothingness? I would still choose it. I would need to be ethically honest. That would require that I make my choice not based on reward but on actual desire. Since choosing based on reward would be evil I would have to go with my original desire -- not to be with God.
To make any choice because of reward or fear of something is morally bankrupt. Sad that Christians feel they are moral when they are only choosing what they see as a non-choice.
Anyway, I am ranting -- jacked up on coffee and not making sense. But my choice is the same.
Posted by: Guest Feb 19 2004, 11:00 PM
this god you describe seems like a real nice guy. I'd feel comfortable knowing sombody like him was running things. However, your hypothetical posits some characteristics which seem to be mutually exclusive. Granted, it's just my opinion, but god can't possibly be the ultimate good if he requires you to give up yourself. After all, self awareness, self authority as you put it, and personal freedom make up the greatest part of who and what we as humans are, to ask that we give up any of that is to request a thing which cannot possibly go toward human good.
Now, I don't understand why one would want a second chance if there's no hell, if they wanted to remain their own master that is. and if I did for some reason choose to 'give up myself' to follow him in some reincarnated, what incentive would there be to do so? And for that matter, why should an all powerful god require anything of me?
I choose to believe that though this god of your imagining is a great deal better than all the other gods of other imaginings, to me he still doesn't represent the ultimate good, as I stated above, and therefore would choose the latter of the options you give. it would be nice though if after a few tens of millenia into eternity, i could just wink out of existence forever. that would be true eternal separation from an omnipresent god.
Posted by: pitchu Feb 19 2004, 11:00 PM
Part of my definition of perfect goodness is that it would never require one to give up one's authority over one's own life.
Controlling humans and governments do that. It's why we find them not only imperfect but repugnant.
Posted by: Starflier Feb 19 2004, 11:06 PM
In the first place, if either Jesus or God were truly "good" they wouldn't be asking anyone to give up their authority or anything else to them. Good deities or people just don't do that. They consider themselves equal to or servants to others, not better so they can lord it over others.
In the second place if I was asked to give up my authority to either Jesus or God the Father, I'd tell them both to go fly a kite. Why? Because they're both males. I will never give up my authority to any male. They don't know much about females, having never been one. These two male deities you described sound like control freaks who want power over others, especially females.
In the third place, they'd both be misoygnist chauvanist jackasses to even ask such a thing of anyone, let alone a female & a mother, grandmother, great grandmother like me. How dare they? I'd tell them I'm going to tell their Mother on them & let her pour forth her almighty just punishment upon them both.
In the fourth place, I wouldn't want to go be with either of them in their patriarchalist female-hating chauvanist arrogant kingdom. It's a "king"dom after all with no queen in it so no "queen"dom allowed. No Mother Goddess & no Daughter Goddess. So no LOVE at all which their request for power over others means. Not LOVE. How arrogant can they get?
I'll take whatever other afterlife choices I've discovered exist after I get there. Their heaven sounds no better than pure hell to me. You can have it.
I also think you need to go & read the "Forgiveness" thread in the "Rants" forum.
Posted by: SuicydeAlley Feb 19 2004, 11:07 PM
If your hypothetical question was truth, I would want eternal seperation.
I already chose him once, gave up myself and my freedoms.
And...
Just because you stand before an entity that seems greater to you than you yourself, does not mean it is god.
Posted by: Reach Feb 19 2004, 11:09 PM
QUOTE (Erik the Awful @ Feb 19 2004, 10:46 PM)
I would SO love to be wrong.
I hear you, Erik. I'm not answering the guest (probably spammer of the day) who started this new thread for non-christians.
I love what Dave has done with this site, closing down all topics to the non-member, except for this one. As a member of the site, regardless of the guest's questions, I'm free to roam as I wish. Thank you, again and again, WebMaster, for leaving the door open to your site for such a one as me.
I hear you Erik. That's enough said for now.
Posted by: Neil Feb 19 2004, 11:18 PM
I had a dream once about this. In the dream, I died and *poof!* there I was awaiting my judgement infront of the big guy. First thing I would do is make sure that I was actually there, because that's what I did in my dream. My gut instinct was to make sure I wasn't dreaming, and forced myself awake to test that hypothesis. Turned out I was right.
But if every hypothesis failed and I was obviously in Heaven standing before Jesus, I would have to accept it.
I'd still want some answers, of course.
Posted by: Lokmer Feb 19 2004, 11:27 PM
I'd be all there. The only problem I have with the sort of Christianity I believed in is that it's not true - the other problems I have had from time to time are easily attributable to people fucking up a basically good idea, which I can deal with.
But if it turned out to really be true, hell yes I'm there. Truth is what I'm interested in, wherever it leads. If that means having the chance to smoke a cigar with God, so much the better.
-Lokmer
Posted by: Fweethawt Feb 19 2004, 11:41 PM
My decision would be based on His answers to my two questions.
1. What was existence all about?
2. What have you really done with my sister?
His failure to answer these questions during this life is part of what made me walk away. If He couldn't answer these in an afterlife, my response wouldn't be any different.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 20 2004, 01:50 AM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 20 2004, 01:17 AM)
Ok i would just like to pose a hypothetical question for the non-christians here....this is not a loaded question, i am not trying to evoke a certain response, i just want to know....this is purely investigative.
Imagine if you will that you have just died, and find yourself (surprise!) before Jesus Christ. He looks at you, and you know at once all that he represents, beyond all the misconceptions--love, joy, peace, but also eternal commitment. In order to follow him, you must give up your authority to him. Thus, he gives you a choice--a second chance. Choose him, give up yourself, some of your "freedoms", if you will, to follow him. Or, you could choose to be your own master, do things the way you want, let your own self be your god....and no, by choosing this your are not sentenced to eternal flame and burning and torture. Instead, you are simply granted your wish--eternal seperation from God. No interaction with him whatsoever.
Also, let us presume that God makes it infinately clear to you that he is perfectly good. The ultimate good. Everything about God condoning rape/murder/etc. is just misconceptions, and he really truely is good, it's just that he requires something of you, actually, all of you, and in order to do that you must give up your authority over yourself to God.
So....given that hypothetical choice after you die, and presuming that hypothetically everyone would get this choice....what would you choose to do?
i honestly don't know. i would have to have this convo with god in real life actually physically there before i could make a decision.
Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Feb 20 2004, 02:35 AM
Would you rather give up your freedom to serve a benevolant dictator in a facist country, or a keep your freedom and take your chances with a corrupt president in a democratic country?
Would you rather give up all rights to your self to serve a benevolant king, or would you rather keep your rights and take your chances.
"Give me liberty or give me death," John Paul Jones.
Just a thought...
Posted by: Autumnwind Feb 20 2004, 04:08 AM
You know, there's a video game that revolves around this exact premise. In this fantasy world, there's a race of people who have the power to destroy the world, if they so decided it. There's also a Goddess who is benevolent and only wants the best for the world. So, she sets about the genocide of that race, just because they have the POTENTIAL to do harm, and then severely limits the technology that the "common" people can achieve, as so they don't do something stupid with it, like weapons of mass destruction; she's also holding back the spread of a desert from the rest of the world.
You play the role of a survivor of that genocide, and by endgame you're given just that choice by the goddess- well, except it's give up your freedom or die. This goddess MEANS well, but the fact is that he's hurting the world as well as helping it, by forcing choices on them. Thus, it's *expected* that you fight her (you can chose to follow her).
So the last scene involved your characters looking out over the desert. I imagine the point there, even though it's not stated, is "Did we do the right thing by removing this goddess's control?"
That being said, I likely can't make that choice unless and until I'm presented with it. Why/how are they appearing to me now? Are they willing to explain and answer my questions? If so, are their answers satisfactory to me? Can I believe them? What freedoms would I be giving up? Why would I be giving them up? Why need it be *eternal* separation? What if those freedoms I'm giving up denies me experiences I feel I need? What would happen if I asked for more time to experience the world and everything around it? (This applies even if I'm dead- I'm not asking for resurrection, I'm asking for my self to still be able to poke around for a while, not bothering anyone, just seeing things. Like China.)
Without all that information, I can't really make that choice, but with the info I DO have, I'd have to say I'd choose separation. If God exists, he's burned too many bridges with me to be able to give up any freedoms to him.
Posted by: Moreover The Dog Feb 20 2004, 04:31 AM
That's an easy question! I'm standing in front of Jesus and God Almighty? I stick to my guns. After all He created me, right? What do I say?
"FUCK YOU, GOD! KISS MY UNHOLY BALLS, YOU PIGFUCKING DEVIANT!!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU! YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT AND A DEAD BEAT DAD!!!! FUCK YOU AND YOUR DUBIOUS SON AND YOUR HOMO-EROTIC APARITION! WHAT THE FUCK IS THE TRINITY ANYWAY? THE GREATEST MYSTERY REVEALED? WHAT IS THAT SHIT? AND WHY ARE ALL OF YOUR FOLLOWERS A BUNCH OF WHACK JOB MORONS? YOUR HOLY BOOK AND YOUR LEGACY IS A PILE OF SHIT!!!! IF YOU CALL WHAT I HAD A CHOICE, THEN FUCK YOU! YOU CREATED THOUSANDS OF BELIEF SYSTEMS AND FAILED TO CLARIFY WHICH ONE WAS RIGHT? AND NOW YOU'RE GIVING ME THE "YOU PICKED THE WRONG BELIEF SHIT?" FUCK YOU. YOU'RE REALLY NOT VERY GOOD AT BEING GOD, ARE YOU? ARE YOU NEW AT THIS? SEND ME TO HELL. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. BY THE WAY, WHERE'S GOD THE MOTHER?"
Posted by: Tocis Feb 20 2004, 05:27 AM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 19 2004, 10:17 PM)
So....given that hypothetical choice after you die, and presuming that hypothetically everyone would get this choice....what would you choose to do?
Well...
...after getting over my surprise to not find myself in either Hel or (preferably) Valhalla, I'd probably wonder (just like has been said before by others) if any entity that demands that I give up even part of my authority over myself can really be absolutely good and loving. If so, I'd probably join him. I guess, though, that this is a decision that I'd have to make on the spot.
Posted by: Guest Feb 20 2004, 05:28 AM
QUOTE
Granted, it's just my opinion, but god can't possibly be the ultimate good if he requires you to give up yourself
Not true. What if he knew that we would only be perfectly happy when we gave ourselves up to him? When you really love someone, don't you to some extent give up some of your personal authority in order to love them? Wouldn't that be much more so with a diety who was the epitome of greatness, goodness, and love? I would argue that God would NOT be loving unless he required us to give ourselves up to him.
QUOTE
Would you rather give up all rights to your self to serve a benevolant king, or would you rather keep your rights and take your chances.
By "giving yourself up", i don't mean, "surrenduring all your rights and becoming a slave." What i mean is basically, trust. Trusting another to guide you because that other knows what's best for you more than you do. That's all it is. Trust. And don't love and trust go together? How can one say, "Oh yeah God, i love you, but i think that if i let you be in control, you'd just mess things up. So i think i'd rather go about doing things my own way, not answering to anyone for my decisions, being ruler over my own life. Oh, but i still love you." That doesn't work. it's not real love.
Thus, a God who is love would have to require us to give up self in order to love him.
Posted by: Bruce Feb 20 2004, 05:37 AM
Considering the less than spectacular job that God has done (playing the scenario here), I would rather take my chances on my own. If an omnipotent being who decided that men should have nipples that serve no purpose is evidence of his abilities and decision making processes, then it's no thanks. However, the workings of reality pretty well negate the whole omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, all good-all the time god concept. Besides, who knows when aliens from another dimension might show up and have iron chariots. We would be toast, cause Yahweh can't deal with iron chariots.
//Bruce//
Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 20 2004, 05:40 AM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 20 2004, 08:28 AM)
By "giving yourself up", i don't mean, "surrenduring all your rights and becoming a slave." What i mean is basically, trust. Trusting another to guide you because that other knows what's best for you more than you do. That's all it is. Trust. And don't love and trust go together?
I think you have a warped sense of trust and love.
Love is allowing a person to be themselves. It's definitely NOT requiring them to bend to your will.
QUOTE
How can one say, "Oh yeah God, i love you, but i think that if i let you be in control, you'd just mess things up. So i think i'd rather go about doing things my own way, not answering to anyone for my decisions, being ruler over my own life. Oh, but i still love you." That doesn't work. it's not real love.
There is plenty of justification for telling god that we're concerned he'd mess things up if we gave him control. If he really exists look at the mess the world is in today. Either he can fix everything and doesn't, or he doesn't have the power to fix everything. Either way, he doesn't have a great track record.
QUOTE
Thus, a God who is love would have to require us to give up self in order to love him.
I'd hate to see what your relationships are like if this is your take on love. Do you require your spouse, parents, children, friends, etc. to give up themselves to love you? Don't kid yourself. You're talking about slavery not love.
Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 20 2004, 05:54 AM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 20 2004, 01:17 AM)
In order to follow him, you must give up your authority to him. Thus, he gives you a choice--a second chance. Choose him, give up yourself, some of your "freedoms", if you will, to follow him. Or, you could choose to be your own master, do things the way you want, let your own self be your god....and no, by choosing this your are not sentenced to eternal flame and burning and torture. Instead, you are simply granted your wish--eternal seperation from God. No interaction with him whatsoever.
I think it's very telling that "Guest" chose to frame this hypothetical situation in this manner.
The choice s/he paints is one of citizenship in the Borg or complete separation.
I'd like to offer another option. Suppose it turns out there is a supernatural being who created the universe. When we die it welcomes us warmly as companions who are free to follow our god-given hearts and minds to make decisions for ourselves. It tells us that we are free to make mistakes and to continue to grow as free beings, but it will always love us, no matter what.
Now that's a happy ending I could appreciate.
**************************************
Guest - why is your vision so limited? Why do you feel it has to come down to a decision to give up freedom for love and acceptance?
Posted by: KJPee Feb 20 2004, 06:20 AM
I initially thought that this was a silly question, but having read some of the replies, I think it says quite a lot about the person answering it. Apparently being faced with their "mistake" does not change things for them at all. Stubbornly refusing any "second chance" and stomping of to hell in a childish huff. I really don't believe anyone would chose hell given the situation, but to admit that here is possibly a sign of weakness for some.
Kevin:
Posted by: Moreover The Dog Feb 20 2004, 06:38 AM
QUOTE
I initially thought that this was a silly question, but having read some of the replies, I think it says quite a lot about the person answering it. Apparently being faced with their "mistake" does not change things for them at all. Stubbornly refusing any "second chance" and stomping of to hell in a childish huff. I really don't believe anyone would chose hell given the situation, but to admit that here is possibly a sign of weakness for some.
Wow! you're a very self righteous person. Blow it out your ass.
Posted by: ericf Feb 20 2004, 06:42 AM
First off, the scenario says that we would not be storming off into hell. And at the same time it doesn't prove we are running from a mistake when we reject something we do not want. I have never wanted heaven, not once, not even as a little little kid. Even when I truely believed I knew that God would reward me with oblivion when I died. I abhore the unnatural desire for eternity. Now, given that I would face eternity either way (assuming god wasn't offering oblivion) I would choose seperation. How could I morally accept a lobotomized eternity and offer my auxillary support for God's action of bringing me into an eternal state I did not want? Given that God is all-knowing this scenario is really pointless because 1) God will know what we want before he asks and 2) God should know that I didn't want eternity before he created me so he screwed up or is evil.
On top of this I have to deal with the ethics of being good (following God) merely for the reward... and avoiding evil (rejecting God) just to avoid the punishment! That is not an ethical situation by any means...
Posted by: KJPee Feb 20 2004, 06:46 AM
QUOTE
Wow! you're a very self righteous person. Blow it out your ass.
I've often wondered what "self righteous" means. Would you care to take a stab at it Moreover?
Kevin:
Posted by: ericf Feb 20 2004, 06:53 AM
self-righteous
adj : excessively or hypocritically pious
self-righteous
\Self`-right"eous\, a. Righteous in one's own esteem; pharisaic.
self-right·eous (slfrchs)
adj.
Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
Exhibiting pious self-assurance
--- Hope that helps -- can you understand that or do we need to explain all the word with more than two syllables?
Posted by: UV2003 Feb 20 2004, 06:53 AM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 20 2004, 05:28 AM)
QUOTE
Granted, it's just my opinion, but god can't possibly be the ultimate good if he requires you to give up yourself
Not true. What if he knew that we would only be perfectly happy when we gave ourselves up to him? When you really love someone, don't you to some extent give up some of your personal authority in order to love them? Wouldn't that be much more so with a diety who was the epitome of greatness, goodness, and love? I would argue that God would NOT be loving unless he required us to give ourselves up to him.
QUOTE
Would you rather give up all rights to your self to serve a benevolant king, or would you rather keep your rights and take your chances.
By "giving yourself up", i don't mean, "surrenduring all your rights and becoming a slave." What i mean is basically, trust. Trusting another to guide you because that other knows what's best for you more than you do. That's all it is. Trust. And don't love and trust go together? How can one say, "Oh yeah God, i love you, but i think that if i let you be in control, you'd just mess things up. So i think i'd rather go about doing things my own way, not answering to anyone for my decisions, being ruler over my own life. Oh, but i still love you." That doesn't work. it's not real love.
Thus, a God who is love would have to require us to give up self in order to love him.
There are so many flaws with this. I've made a post about this in the past on here about free will.
If this god knows we will be "perfectly" happy what does this mean? It means he has to modify our existence against our will. Assuming not all people we know and somehow still love despite their refusal to accept this god will not be in heaven, will this god have to obliterate our memories of these people? Christians say that the "enormity" of sin might make it clear to us and we won't even miss them, but then they are left having to explain why this god would love sinners so much as to die for them but not deem sinners capable of loving their own people enough as to miss them aftering seeing this enormity of sin.
If this god has perfect happiness in store for us then this is predetermined state of being, and this state of being could just as easily have been created for us without him having to bring us into this world could it not? If he is going to have to modify our existence anyway, why must he put us through this in the first place? One objection could be that this world is the only possible way for him to determine who truly wanted to have eternal happiness, by giving "choice", but here you face a strange paradox: this god created us against our will since it did not yet exist, then gives us the choice of either wanting this prefabricated state of eternal bliss or a state of eternal separation/torment. So, how has this god bestowed upon us free will if we were not created freely? Is this perfect love?
If you had a child who did not prior to his birth ask you to be born, would you stand over him and tell him, "either you chose to love me, or I withhold goodness from you...."??
The parable of the lost sons shows a different view of relationships, but is it one really based on biblegod or is it based on humanity and compassion? The O.T. biblegod brought evil against his people when they disobeyed. The father in this parable patiently waits and runs with open arms to the repentent sinner. He did not actively bring evil against him.
Real love? Again, what is real love if not mutual submission? Where is this god in mutual submission to humanity? Is love love if it is based on fear and authority or is love love based on mutual submission? A possible answser to this is the parent/child argument again where the parent knows what is best, but where that breaks down is that the earthly parent is physically tangible and present.
The earthly parent has never been mistaken for Zeus, Allah, Krishna, or other deities. If the biblegod truly loved his creatures would he not make himself abundantly clear by presenting himself? The Christian may say, "But then everyone would be forced to worship him." Well, then the Christian must abandon the parent/child analogy because I've never known a parent to hide behind a curtain and direct his child via emails or other people speaking for the parent. The parent that truly loves his or her child is physically present taking action and providing guidance through love and discipline. In our society we call the parent that operates via third parties negligent and in his children become neglected.
-UV
Posted by: KJPee Feb 20 2004, 06:58 AM
QUOTE
Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
Exhibiting pious self-assurance
Eric:
You sound a little upset. The question was actually for Moreover, but thanks for looking it up in the dictionary for me.
Kevin:
Posted by: ericf Feb 20 2004, 07:03 AM
lol, upset no... but you were deflecting the actual spirit of the remark and focusing on the vocabulary. We can all go to dictionary.com and look up words that we may not understand. I don't agree with the attitude that Moveover originally responded with (not my style) but your remark wasn't much better. You based it on the assumption that your understanding is not only correct but that you are morally superior because we would reject your decision even if we had the same revelations.
Posted by: KJPee Feb 20 2004, 07:14 AM
QUOTE
lol, upset no... but you were deflecting the actual spirit of the remark and focusing on the vocabulary. We can all go to dictionary.com and look up words that we may not understand. I don't agree with the attitude that Moveover originally responded with (not my style) but your remark wasn't much better. You based it on the assumption that your understanding is not only correct but that you are morally superior because we would reject your decision even if we had the same revelations.
Eric:
I am sorry if I gave you that impression. I merely stated what I believe.
Kevin:
Posted by: Skankboy Feb 20 2004, 07:28 AM
I don't know why, but for some reason this all reminds me of Star Trek 5. The one with Spok's brother. They go through all this stuff and end up meeting "God" in the center of the Galaxy. Everyone's going "oh, shit! God's real, what'll we do?" And Kirk looks at it, thinks about it a minute and says: "Why does God need a spaceship?"
The point being, why would a "perfect" being need or want for anything?
Just a thought...
Posted by: ericf Feb 20 2004, 08:17 AM
God is so desperately insecure that if all of humanity ceased to worship him, he would need to make the rocks call out praises to him.
Luke 19:37-40 KJV
And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Looks like he needs something... and he'll get it anyway possible. Ha, who said church was a waste of time?
EDIT: Add book and version.
Posted by: UV2003 Feb 20 2004, 08:29 AM
QUOTE (ericf @ Feb 20 2004, 08:17 AM)
God is so desperately insecure that if all of humanity ceased to worship him, he would need to make the rocks call out praises to him.
Luke 19:37-40 KJV
And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Looks like he needs something... and he'll get it anyway possible. Ha, who said church was a waste of time?
EDIT: Add book and version.
To be fair, I don't think this is really saying he needed anything, just that his majesty was so obvious that all of the creation bore witness to it.
Doesn't make me believe the story literally happened, but still...
-UV
Posted by: Loren Feb 20 2004, 08:40 AM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 20 2004, 05:28 AM)
Not true. What if he knew that we would only be perfectly happy when we gave ourselves up to him? When you really love someone, don't you to some extent give up some of your personal authority in order to love them?
No.
A person who has had genuine experience with real love knows that just the oposite is true: real love places us in a position where the only way we can excercise that love is by facing our own responsibility as free agent adults.
You are confusing the price of real love (facing adult responsibility) with the choice to remain in a state of social infancy.
This scenario would just convince me that despite the appearance of divinity and power, any being (such as the one you describe) who clearly has a spiritual understanding which is more limited than my own is clearly not what it claims to be.
Posted by: ericf Feb 20 2004, 08:41 AM
lol... sure state the obvious.
I was pretending to use the church logic with that actually. The reference at the bottom is a bad indicator of that fact. There are several sermons, praise songs, books, etc. all that use that verse to say stuff like "I'm going to praise his name, not going to let the rocks cry out." And all that junk. It leads to a very sad image of Jesus... needing to hear praises each second or "something horrible enough to fake praise from rocks."
I tend to screw myself because I like to quote verses in context. Every sermon I have heard using that verse used only 40... ignoring the context. But context is important because it let's us see where -- what we "expect" to see from what we are told in church and what is actually in the bible -- intersect.
[Yep, that shouldn't have used --'s but I had no idea how to format that so it was readable.]
Comeon... if God needs a spaceship it might be because he needs all sorts of stuff and is desperately trying to fill the void in his life. I can just pray that God finds Eris before he turns to drugs or alcohol.
Posted by: sexkitten Feb 20 2004, 09:45 AM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 19 2004, 10:17 PM)
Choose him, give up yourself, some of your "freedoms", if you will, to follow him. Or, you could choose to be your own master, do things the way you want, let your own self be your god....and no, by choosing this your are not sentenced to eternal flame and burning and torture. Instead, you are simply granted your wish--eternal seperation from God. No interaction with him whatsoever.
Given this choice, I'd probably take eternal separation. I do not want to lose myself, as I've just recently found me again. But if God were granting my greatest wish, I'd be asking for annihilation after death.
The whole eternal life thing always seriously ooged me out even when I was a Christian, anyway. I wouldn't mind having a Lazurus Long sort of lifespan, but not an eternal afterlife.
Posted by: Guest Feb 20 2004, 09:48 AM
QUOTE
Love is allowing a person to be themselves. It's definitely NOT requiring them to bend to your will.
But in order to love someone, you have to GIVE something. If you really love someone, you would be willing to sacrifice anything--even yourself--for them. That is why one who loves God would be perfectly willing to give up self. God requires it because it is the only way that we can love him, not because he wants us to be his slaves. This may sound cliche, but a person cannot have two masters. Your idea of love is a very passive one, and in fact i would not call it love; i would call it acceptance. Yes, acceptance is a component of love, but sometimes love overrules acceptance. For example, take a wife whose husband is an alcoholic--his life is consumed by alchohol, it has been his downfall, and yet he refuses to get treatment, and instead chooses to wallow in his misery. The wife still loves him, but she cannot accept him as he is. That is the difference between love and acceptance. If you love someone, you want to see them at their very best, thus you want to spur them toward that.
QUOTE
You are confusing the price of real love (facing adult responsibility) with the choice to remain in a state of social infancy.
Could you please clarify this? i am unsure of what you are trying to say.
QUOTE
The point being, why would a "perfect" being need or want for anything?
One way of looking at things that i have found helpful is this. Look at God as being eternal, and as having eternal attributes that are inherent in his nature, and he can only act in accordance with these attributes. (Some say this contradicts ominpotence, but i think it is ridiculous to insist that an omnipotent being should be able to endlessly contradict itself to the point that it would cease to exist. That kind of omnipotence could never exist, same as a spherical square could never exist). So, we have a God who is a relational being in his eternal nature. This is evidenced by the fact that he is Trinitarian in nature. As an outpouring of this nature, he creates beings whom he loves. Thus, while he does not NEED to create relational beings to love, he does so because it is in accordance with his eternal, intrinsic nature.
i don't know if i got that across well, but hopefully you'll be able to see that there is some coherency in that line of thought.
Posted by: SuicydeAlley Feb 20 2004, 11:06 AM
Kevin,
You have reduced me to a three year old throwing a temper tantrum....*shakes her head*
The question was hypothetical.
Alley
PS
Your posts say a lot about you.
Posted by: brick Feb 20 2004, 11:10 AM
If I find myself this this situation after death,
a) father and son have a shit load of explaining to do. If their answers aren't met to my satisfaction then they can keep their heaven.
if father and son actually require that I have misspent my life on my knees endlessly worshipping them instead of seeking selfactualization, they can keep their heaven.c) if father and son require me change in anyway from the person I already am (you mentioned giving up"freedoms"?) then they can keep their heaven.
d) if there is no beer, sex, or good music, they can keep their heaven
I think, in a nutshell, they can just keep their heaven, it doesn't sound like the kind of place I would be happy in no matter which way I look at it.
PS. stupid question
Posted by: KJPee Feb 20 2004, 11:21 AM
QUOTE
Kevin,
You have reduced me to a three year old throwing a temper tantrum....*shakes her head*
The question was hypothetical.
Alley
PS
Your posts say a lot about you.
Suicyde:
The question may have been hypothetical, but it was the responses that were interesting, and furthermore even the reactions to my post.
I am interested in hearing what my posts have to say about me though. I'm going to brace myself and take it like a man.
Ok, I'm braced!
Kevin:
Posted by: Loren Feb 20 2004, 11:55 AM
QUOTE (ericf @ Feb 20 2004, 08:41 AM)
I can just pray that God finds Eris before he turns to drugs or alcohol.
"You know, there ain' no devil. Tha's jus' God when He's drunk!"
--Tom Waits
Posted by: pitchu Feb 20 2004, 12:24 PM
Kevin,
What makes you say/think that owning one's own life, being in charge of one's choices, taking responsibility for one's actions, and *allowing* *all* *others* *to* *do* *the* *same* is like being a 'god'? Your god sure as hell never did this.
Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 20 2004, 12:25 PM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 20 2004, 12:48 PM)
QUOTE
Love is allowing a person to be themselves. It's definitely NOT requiring them to bend to your will.
But in order to love someone, you have to GIVE something. If you really love someone, you would be willing to sacrifice anything--even yourself--for them.
Yes, you have to FREELY give what you choose to give. Not what is demanded of you.
QUOTE
That is why one who loves God would be perfectly willing to give up self. God requires it because it is the only way that we can love him, not because he wants us to be his slaves.
Giving up yourself - your right to self determination is NEVER a good thing and would not be required by someone who truly loves you.
QUOTE
This may sound cliche, but a person cannot have two masters.
There's your problem. You're confusing love and control. There are no masters in a relationship built on true love.
Posted by: KJPee Feb 20 2004, 12:35 PM
QUOTE
Kevin,
What makes you say/think that owning one's own life, being in charge of one's choices, taking responsibility for one's actions, and *allowing* *all* *others* *to* *do* *the* *same* is like being a 'god'? Your god sure as hell never did this.
You've lost me here Pitchu. Not trying to be difficult or anything, which I usually am. When did I say what?
Kevin
Posted by: Loren Feb 20 2004, 12:45 PM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 20 2004, 09:48 AM)
QUOTE
You are confusing the price of real love (facing adult responsibility) with the choice to remain in a state of social infancy.
Could you please clarify this? i am unsure of what you are trying to say.
Social infancy is the nature of the relationship you describe as being offered. It's social pattern is that of the relationship between child and adult. It is always hierarchical and top-down. It's a very good and healthy way to protect infants. It's not healthy or appropriate for adults.
The problem you are experiencing with your question is a result of the way you've structured your question. You've phrased it in such a way as to place one into a position of having to choose between two (only) artificially untenable situations.
The dilemma is an artificial one created solely by you in the way you set up the situation. One could make up a great many different hypothetical situations which are all designed to funnel the person being questioned into a rhetorical bottleneck. It might be a fun game, but what does it have to do with anything?
This is a version of many other old chestnuts such as, "Can God make a rock so heavy, even He can't lift it?"
It's a wife beating question. I've never yet met a wife beating question which was reflective of reality, or even useful for any purpose other than showing the problem with wife beating questions.
Are you suggesting that the situation you've described is reflective of God? If so, then He's a very small god. If God's being has the same structure as a wife beating question, then I can encompass that God. He should be worshipping me. I'm bigger.
Of course, I'm not saying that I'm bigger than God. I'm saying your model is not a usable depiction of God.
Forget the labels and look at the structure.
Posted by: pitchu Feb 20 2004, 12:47 PM
QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Feb 20 2004, 12:25 PM)
QUOTE
That is why one who loves God would be perfectly willing to give up self. God requires it because it is the only way that we can love him, not because he wants us to be his slaves.
Giving up yourself - your right to self determination is NEVER a good thing and would not be required by someone who truly loves you.
Absolutely.
Besides which, this notion of 'giving up self' is an exercise in madness. You haven't done it. Nobody alive has ever done it. Truly enslaved peoples haven't done it. Practicioners of S&M haven't done it. Even those who've self-immolated or simply committed suicide have done that on the premise of something intrinsic to self: An idea, conviction, faith or principle which they, themselves, believe.
You cannot extricate self from what the self does, or how the self acts.
In your scenario, the self would be self-interestedly involved in the choice, right through the instant of the total forfeiture of self; after which act, of course, we got no more self to give god love or to even be talkin' about.
Like I said... madness.
Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 20 2004, 01:06 PM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 20 2004, 01:17 AM)
In order to follow him, you must give up your authority to him. Thus, he gives you a choice--a second chance. Choose him, give up yourself, some of your "freedoms", if you will, to follow him.
Some of the "fine print" that christians forget to mention is that there can be no free will in heaven.
Their god has seen what calamity can be caused by allowing creations to make their own decisions. The horrible battle between god and satan (and his angels) and the shameful Garden of Eden episode are directly attributable to free will.
The only way to insure that heaven remains peaceful is to remove the free will of its inhabitants. Sounds like a horrible place to me.
As Dave quoted, "Live Free or Die".
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 20 2004, 02:17 PM
QUOTE (WebMaster @ Feb 20 2004, 05:35 AM)
Would you rather give up your freedom to serve a benevolant dictator in a facist country, or a keep your freedom and take your chances with a corrupt president in a democratic country?
Would you rather give up all rights to your self to serve a benevolant king, or would you rather keep your rights and take your chances.
"Give me liberty or give me death," John Paul Jones.
Just a thought...
that clears it up...but i still don't know what i would do under the circumstances lol.
I mean come on, while it might not be morally upright, if i'm being offered all kinds of things JUST to follow a BENEVOLENT dictator, i don't know...i mean i could always change my mind later and rebel. I might just go on in and see what it was like. Maybe i don't have as much moral fortitude as the rest of you, but at least i'm honest.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 20 2004, 02:19 PM
QUOTE (Autumnwind @ Feb 20 2004, 07:08 AM)
You know, there's a video game that revolves around this exact premise. In this fantasy world, there's a race of people who have the power to destroy the world, if they so decided it. There's also a Goddess who is benevolent and only wants the best for the world. So, she sets about the genocide of that race, just because they have the POTENTIAL to do harm, and then severely limits the technology that the "common" people can achieve, as so they don't do something stupid with it, like weapons of mass destruction; she's also holding back the spread of a desert from the rest of the world.
You play the role of a survivor of that genocide, and by endgame you're given just that choice by the goddess- well, except it's give up your freedom or die. This goddess MEANS well, but the fact is that he's hurting the world as well as helping it, by forcing choices on them. Thus, it's *expected* that you fight her (you can chose to follow her).
So the last scene involved your characters looking out over the desert. I imagine the point there, even though it's not stated, is "Did we do the right thing by removing this goddess's control?"
That being said, I likely can't make that choice unless and until I'm presented with it. Why/how are they appearing to me now? Are they willing to explain and answer my questions? If so, are their answers satisfactory to me? Can I believe them? What freedoms would I be giving up? Why would I be giving them up? Why need it be *eternal* separation? What if those freedoms I'm giving up denies me experiences I feel I need? What would happen if I asked for more time to experience the world and everything around it? (This applies even if I'm dead- I'm not asking for resurrection, I'm asking for my self to still be able to poke around for a while, not bothering anyone, just seeing things. Like China.)
Without all that information, I can't really make that choice, but with the info I DO have, I'd have to say I'd choose separation. If God exists, he's burned too many bridges with me to be able to give up any freedoms to him.
these are all very good points. And i'm surprised i never thought before about the "ghost" thing.
If you could be a ghost and actually not be stuck haunting one stinkin house forever it would be cool as hell, and free to travel the world. lol.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 20 2004, 02:22 PM
QUOTE (Tocis @ Feb 20 2004, 08:27 AM)
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 19 2004, 10:17 PM)
So....given that hypothetical choice after you die, and presuming that hypothetically everyone would get this choice....what would you choose to do?
Well...
...after getting over my surprise to not find myself in either Hel or (preferably) Valhalla, I'd probably wonder (just like has been said before by others) if any entity that demands that I give up even part of my authority over myself can really be absolutely good and loving. If so, I'd probably join him. I guess, though, that this is a decision that I'd have to make on the spot.
yep. i would have to get over the shock of not being greeted by anubis and not seeing isis or osiris. I would have to get over the shock of not reincarnating or having that choice. THEN we could talk.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 20 2004, 02:23 PM
QUOTE (Bruce @ Feb 20 2004, 08:37 AM)
Considering the less than spectacular job that God has done (playing the scenario here), I would rather take my chances on my own. If an omnipotent being who decided that men should have nipples that serve no purpose is evidence of his abilities and decision making processes, then it's no thanks. However, the workings of reality pretty well negate the whole omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, all good-all the time god concept. Besides, who knows when aliens from another dimension might show up and have iron chariots. We would be toast, cause Yahweh can't deal with iron chariots.
//Bruce//
i would be freaked out if i ever saw a man with no nipples.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 20 2004, 02:28 PM
QUOTE (brick @ Feb 20 2004, 02:10 PM)
If I find myself this this situation after death,
a) father and son have a shit load of explaining to do. If their answers aren't met to my satisfaction then they can keep their heaven.
if father and son actually require that I have misspent my life on my knees endlessly worshipping them instead of seeking selfactualization, they can keep their heaven.c) if father and son require me change in anyway from the person I already am (you mentioned giving up"freedoms"?) then they can keep their heaven.
d) if there is no beer, sex, or good music, they can keep their heaven
I think, in a nutshell, they can just keep their heaven, it doesn't sound like the kind of place I would be happy in no matter which way I look at it.
PS. stupid question
oh yeah, without sex i absolutely don't want to be there. eternal celibacy would majorly suck.
Posted by: Autumnwind Feb 20 2004, 02:42 PM
QUOTE
When you really love someone, don't you to some extent give up some of your personal authority in order to love them?
OH HELL NO!
Abso-fuckin-lutely not. I heard THAT argument from my dear ex-husband who tried to strangle me.
FUCK no. I do NOT need to give up ANY of my self, of my being, to love another. They are two mutually exclusive concepts. I REFUSE to give up what I believe to be morally correct and true because someone I love disagrees with me, and, likewise, I refuse to try to force it on them when they disagree with ME. Because I love them. Allowing someone to be themselves, to believe what they feel is right, and to disagree with you is love. Not giving up your authority and submitting to another.
Love, to me, is centered around equals, and damn any being, deity or human, who tells me that they LOVE me but I need to surrender ANY of my "personal authority" for me to love them. That being has obviously NOT felt Love.
Posted by: Rhiannon Feb 20 2004, 02:43 PM
OK, I would firstly accept I made a mistake in my knowledge that he didnt exist.
Then, would need a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time for him to explain to me exactly which version of the many Gods described in the bible (the angry petulant one in the OT, the kind loving one in the first half of the NT, the raving nut-job one in the second half of the NT) find out which bits I agreed with, and which I could accept while differing in opinion, and which I could never accept.
Then I would choose to walk away.
If the option is to "give over yourself" and choose to unconditionally love him - well, one of the problems I have with extremist christians is the "god did it, or the devil did it, nothing is ever my fault" annoyance. If something good happens, its "thank you jesus", if something bad happens, "dear jesus, save me from satan". How could I give up responsibility for my actions - it is one of the defining things that makes me who I am.
Also - I cannot choose to love someone. I love a great many people in a variety of ways, I have never made a decision to do so, their actions and thoughts over time have an impact on my perception of them and respect, caring and love develop from that. I cannot simply choose to love someone.
Posted by: Starflier Feb 20 2004, 02:58 PM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 20 2004, 09:48 AM)
1. God requires it because it is the only way that we can love him, not because he wants us to be his slaves
2. So, we have a God who is a relational being in his eternal nature. This is evidenced by the fact that he is Trinitarian in nature.
3. As an outpouring of this nature, he creates beings whom he loves. Thus, while he does not NEED to create relational beings to love, he does so because it is in accordance with his eternal, intrinsic nature.
1. And you know this for a certainity of course because you were divinely appointed via direct communication line with & to be the mouthpieces for an eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being. Right? My aren't you special.
2. Refer to #1 above. And...a trinitarian nature eh? Like father, son & spirit, right? I can do better than that. I've got in me father, mother, child, soul & spirit plus a body. Seems like your male ghost deity is lacking quite a few things, no?
3. See #1 & 2 above. So since you have direct communication & are this male deity's mouthpiece, 'splain something to me please. Your male deity is male + spirit, right? Male as father & son, right? Male as in 'he, him, his, lord, master", right? And ETERNALLY male father/son-spirit at that, right?
Okay now splain please how does an ETERNALLY all male father/son spirit being create a female mother/daughter-spirit in HIS image & likeness?
Also, since he's only father/son-spirit, obviously lonely & in need of a relationship, why didn't he create a mother/daughter-spirit Goddess Wife or female deity partner for himself? Curious minds want to know & since you have direct KNOWledge, as you claimed, of the source of creation & from that source, then only you KNOW, right? .
Posted by: I Broke Free Feb 20 2004, 03:11 PM
I would just ask to placed in the same state I was before I was born.
It was very peaceful...
Posted by: KJPee Feb 20 2004, 03:27 PM
QUOTE
I would just ask to placed in the same state I was before I was born.
It was very peaceful...
Hey, IBF.
I know a guy (Vinny) who can arrange this. Hey for you, even a special discount! Ba da bing...
Kevin
Posted by: _CodeWarren Feb 20 2004, 03:31 PM
I honestly don't know. That's a real tough one, mostly because it is the one strength in argument ("strength" being a loose term ) that Christians and co. have:
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a God and he offered eternal love, etc.?
Of course it fucking would be. But that is all that Christianity can prove: it best, it can only prove that if God exists it would be nice.
And they're right.
But I'm not sure I could take God up on It's offer. Because if God offered for me to exist, just not in his presence, what does that suggest?
It suggests that there is more to the metaphysical/metanatural realm than God. It suggests other Gods.
And if that's the case, then we can infer that each God may be better/worse than the other one.
And then I'd chastize our God for giving us free will, for it has caused so much human pain and misery. Why not make it easy for us? You created us. (It sounds childish, but fuck it).
And then I would strike out on my own. As my own God. For if I was in the metaphysical realm, my emotional attachments wouldn't have mattered.
And if that was the case, I would bathe in the ability to be my own in another dimension.
I would strike out on my own, and open a small quaint gas station on the corner.
And I would rest there, biding my "time", until I could afford to create life (because there's this really nice entertainment center that I've always wanted).
And when that happened, I would of course use evolution and natural selection. And every organism. EVERY ORGANISM...would come to my heaven. It would be just like Earth, only a metaphysical kind.
And then I would use my minions to mount a defense against all the Gods. I would slay them mightily. And usurp the metaphysical kingdom!
That's what I'd do.
Posted by: starstuff Feb 20 2004, 03:54 PM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 19 2004, 10:17 PM)
Ok i would just like to pose a hypothetical question for the non-christians here....this is not a loaded question, i am not trying to evoke a certain response, i just want to know....this is purely investigative.
Imagine if you will that you have just died, and find yourself (surprise!) before Jesus Christ. He looks at you, and you know at once all that he represents, beyond all the misconceptions--love, joy, peace, but also eternal commitment. In order to follow him, you must give up your authority to him. Thus, he gives you a choice--a second chance. Choose him, give up yourself, some of your "freedoms", if you will, to follow him. Or, you could choose to be your own master, do things the way you want, let your own self be your god....and no, by choosing this your are not sentenced to eternal flame and burning and torture. Instead, you are simply granted your wish--eternal seperation from God. No interaction with him whatsoever.
Also, let us presume that God makes it infinately clear to you that he is perfectly good. The ultimate good. Everything about God condoning rape/murder/etc. is just misconceptions, and he really truely is good, it's just that he requires something of you, actually, all of you, and in order to do that you must give up your authority over yourself to God.
So....given that hypothetical choice after you die, and presuming that hypothetically everyone would get this choice....what would you choose to do?
Interesting question. Basically you have asked that if I met God face to face and he really was what I was taught he was all my young life, would I serve him?
I would have a ton of questions for him about the cruelties and incosistancies and confusion in the bible, and how thinking for oneself could be considered a sin. In order to convince me that he was good, he would either have to erase my doubts (and therefore my ability to think independently) from my mind--or convince me that he is not the God of christianity or any of the other organized religions. If he could show me that they just had him all wrong or that they lied about him, then I may just give in to him.
Otherwise, I would definately choose a natural life and then oblivion--exactly what I expect to get anyway.
Posted by: Reality Amplifier Feb 20 2004, 03:57 PM
Given a hypothetical choice after you die, one can only imagine.
Imagine if you just died and appeared before Ahura Mazda…
Imagine if you just died and appeared before Allah…
Imagine if you just died and appeared before Demeter and Dionysus…
Imagine if you just died and appeared before Minos, Rhadamanthos and Aeacus…
Imagine if you just died and appeared before Mithra…
Imagine if you just died and appeared before Naam…
Imagine if you just died and appeared before Osiris…
Imagine if you just died and appeared before Shiva…
Imagine if you just died and appeared before Yama…
Imagine if you just died and appeared before [Fill in the blank], etc, etc…
Get the picture?
Posted by: sexkitten Feb 20 2004, 05:05 PM
What if you died and appeared before Kosh? Can you imagine the conversation about the nature of the universe and your choices for eternity?
So, is there a soul that lives on, or do I return to nothingness and nonexistence?
**yes**
Posted by: pitchu Feb 20 2004, 05:29 PM
QUOTE (KJPee @ Feb 20 2004, 12:35 PM)
QUOTE
Kevin,
What makes you say/think that owning one's own life, being in charge of one's choices, taking responsibility for one's actions, and *allowing* *all* *others* *to* *do* *the* *same* is like being a 'god'? Your god sure as hell never did this.
You've lost me here Pitchu. Not trying to be difficult or anything, which I usually am. When did I say what?
Kevin
My apologies, Kevin. 'Guest' said that in a post on this thread.
Posted by: ~Josalo~ Feb 20 2004, 05:41 PM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 20 2004, 12:17 AM)
Ok i would just like to pose a hypothetical question for the non-christians here....this is not a loaded question, i am not trying to evoke a certain response, i just want to know....this is purely investigative.
Imagine if you will that you have just died, and find yourself (surprise!) before Jesus Christ. He looks at you, and you know at once all that he represents, beyond all the misconceptions--love, joy, peace, but also eternal commitment. In order to follow him, you must give up your authority to him. Thus, he gives you a choice--a second chance. Choose him, give up yourself, some of your "freedoms", if you will, to follow him. Or, you could choose to be your own master, do things the way you want, let your own self be your god....and no, by choosing this your are not sentenced to eternal flame and burning and torture. Instead, you are simply granted your wish--eternal seperation from God. No interaction with him whatsoever.
Also, let us presume that God makes it infinately clear to you that he is perfectly good. The ultimate good. Everything about God condoning rape/murder/etc. is just misconceptions, and he really truely is good, it's just that he requires som