As humans we hope that they are alive. As humans I would hope that we would feel better knowing that they are in heaven.
Separating souls, saying you hope some are in heaven and leave out the rest - is a disgusting thing. Until you have thought for yourself, you'll continue to belief that nonsense dribble. No action in this lifetime would ever permit you to an eternity in hell, or hell itself. Similarly, simply believing in "god" doesn't get you to heaven.
In The Bible, the old testament writes about a quick to wrath God with large overtones of retributions. This was the early days where God used fear as a preeminent force to keep man understanding God's law. The verses in The Bible are to help us understand how God was a wrathful God and could be and as we have developed from the early days I wonder if God is continually wrathful or has "calmed down" since we have developed as persons. It's not a disgusting thing, it's a harsh thing, not a disgusting thing. It is how God's wants it to be. I hope that every person goes to heaven, I just know that it is God's decision. I'm glad that we have a God that doesn't wipe the slate clean when things get bad and that there is a heaven. I'm Glad that he appreciates his creations so much that he has given us something like heaven. I believe that there is a tolerance level that is higher than before. We all sin every day and I don't believe God is critical at each one. He appreciates a person taking a moment to ask for forgiveness. I believe that being a good person, when it comes to it, is important. There are times like being angry and react angry, God understands that and is concerned. God would appreciate a good person in heaven. Good deeds is like having "a little more to say at the party" when we go the heaven.
Eric, I think people are taking issue with your posts as you are failing to see (or at least your posts lead me to conclude this) that God cannot be both immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, etc., and capricious as a three-year old kid in a schoolyard playlot, angry because no one will play with him. In other words: Cannot at the same time be: The story of Job alone should give pause: God deliberately subjecting one of his "beloved servants" to unspeakable torments - the murder of his children, torture and disease on Job's body, etc. Why? God was apparently bored, as was Satan ("going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."), and Satan laid a bet that if they messed with Job, Job would lose his faith. Never being one to let stuff roll of his back, the "omnipotent" God responds to Satan's baiting with deliberate evil inflicted on a "faithful servant." So, basically, I personally find the notion: "the Lord your God is a Jealous God" to be ridiculously anthropopathistic. At least the greco-roman bunch, equally anthropopathistic, knew how to party. Aphrodite was hot, and Dionysius was just craaaaaazzzy. I also find the notion of "reward" - to live a righteous life, however one defines it (by works, or by reliance on "grace" of one kind or another) for the "reward" of "eternal afterlife" as an incredibly selfish thing. Doing something knowing there isn't any pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - this is true selflessness, it seems to me.
yes you are right.. it is a matter of time. Even though God exists outside of space and time, God works according to time.. Africa used to be the richest continent but now the poorest so maybe in the near future Africa can regain that title.. it is a matter of time and God has not forsaken anybody..
It's possible. The great thing about God is that he doesn't choose to be that most of the time. God can be in many forms. It seems like your saying what God can or can't be, I believe that God likes the concept of "just because you could doesn't mean you should" but with a difference, God chooses to be like that most of the time because that how God wants to be. The stories in The Bible are in a span of 1,000s of years so the wrathful events are relatively not so much. That shows God is in a good and/or tolerant mood most of the time. If that mood changes, will God's wrath now be as ferosious or not as ferosious. This could effect a person perception of God if that person's perception of God is a perception of a good all the time God. God is a being that appreciates man and can treat man as he/she wants to. It is clear that most of the time he/she treats man good. I get the sense of your comment and it is interesting. In a separate question: what is the definition of anthropopathistic? I like that.
Well, Eric, it is easy enough for you to look up, if interested. Nevertheless, anthropopathism: "attribution of human feelings to things not human, such as inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena," and from this, all else follows. Your god is either immutable, flawless, etc. - which is how the deity is viewed in judeo-christian-muslim theology - in which case, you've got a big problem of a logical disconnect between the putative notion, and stated behavior; or, your deity is as capricious as a three-year old brat, in which case, you have done what man has done from the moment he began wondering about the placement of the moon, stars, planets - imputed his all-too-imperfect nature to the divine. Like I said, the greeks did this, and it was actually kind of a gas.
We are back to the "pff, must just be mysterious" thing again. In no other arena besides theology would such non-answers be tolerated. We wouldn't let someone off of an assault charge if their reason for beating up and old lady was "because i can". Epicurus had the best argument against the existence of christian god; Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? See, The trouble with inventing an invisible entity that is supposed to listen to us, be all knowing and all powerful is you have to find rationalisations for the bad things that happened and why an all knowing all powerful god would not only allow them, But cause them. So far the only rationalisation you have managed is either "god can do what he wants" and "well, Mysterious isn't he", which aren't answers as much as they are excuses for answering. The deists had the right approach to theology; Deist: "god exists" Atheist: "why do bad things happen to good people?" Deist: "because god don't give a shit about us... He made the universe then quit".
northpointaiki, the verse from The Book of James is a part where the speaker is addressing his "brothers" or possibly his friends in a glorious tone that uses words to express a notion. The "Father of lights" possibly is not precise but a phrase to express the person's appreciation of God that is pleasing using flattering expressions to overly flatter God.
James is actually doing what the other apostles (especially Paul), were commonly presumed to have done, forming an epistolary to guide the early church - "the scattered 12 tribes among the nations." Basically, telling them that facing adversity is a gift, handed down by God. Your point, and its relevance to this discussion, is lost to me.
God also believes in :- Lull Before (Full) Storm........ Humanity will have to pay for it's sins and ills, And God will make sure that this time around it will be hell for us
There isn't a problem. I view God as a being that is believable. That is not a disconnect in religious logic whatsoever. It is the big picture, the difference ways of understanding God or reaffirmation of belief is for the person and is with hope that that person's beliefs are restored and improved for that person. Some people believe God to be immutable and/or flawless. Whatever you believe God can put forth for you, at least your believing in God. or, your deity is as capricious as a three-year old brat, in which case, you have done what man has done from the moment he began wondering about the placement of the moon, stars, planets - imputed his all-too-imperfect nature to the divine. Like I said, the greeks did this, and it was actually kind of a gas.[/QUOTE] God can be like a three year old child if God wants to, it doesn't seems like God wants to be like that. The placement of stars could be the way God wanted it to be. God might like the pattern.
When you referred to the verse from The Book of James in your post previously it was to say that my previous post cannot be true. My post about the verse is to show that the verse's interpretation could be difference and that it is not a conclusive comparison.
This amounts to saying deity is whatever you think it to be, Eric. Which is fine, to me, whatever floats your boat. But it doesn't answer the charge that this is a fanciful notion springing from the mind of man.
Eric, I am finding the logic muddled. The verse I posted spoke to the constancy of god. As have other verses, as shown. Perhaps you could explain how your post above is relevant to the apparent disconnect: putative constancy, capricious behavior.
Religion is the tool used by society to keep order among those that have no personal responsibility. Do good now, get rewarded after death. On closer examination the world's religions are contradictory in many aspects, one of which is that true believers should be good to others without expecting a reward, yet their God breaks that rule and promises a big reward for them in the afterlife. No wonder so many religious people act crazy. The rules that they are following don't make any sense.
A minor quibble, Chant, but I can't agree with: Most of the religions I know of, promising some sort of paradisical afterlife, contain the path to that reward, by some sort of behavior in "this" life. Therefore, it is built into these religions that believers or practitioners are very much expectant of reward; they "behave" now for reward later. From my read of the major religions, it is only in the practice of buddhism (not a religion, really or at least, it doesn't have to be) that the idea that selflessness itself is the "reward;" detachment engendering personal freedom, in this life.