Hello from a UK Athiest

[Lon]

Open theism then seems to be of no practical difference to a god or God not existing at all, or at least a god not being involved enough to be noticeable from simply not existing?
Its purpose seems to me to be more about allowing a possibly futile belief despite the many good reasons to think that the opposite of Godly care is the actual reality, a completely natural (un-supernatural) Godless world. I think that some theists have perhaps simply contrived a way to prevent the bad things that they know do happen in a very natural world from being any kind of obstacle to their preferred choice of a belief in a specific God regardless of evidence.
How specifically and with evidence would I be wrong here?

I think similarly so would suggest getting an Open Theist to field this particular. I can, I think, say however that I can understand that thought, but for me, it rather makes God a bit more 'human.' Such doesn't mean you or I would be mad at him because he'd be a bit more inept as it were, at least for our initial assessment. So, I don't think the atheist could be too upset with the open theist because that God isn't in control like the traditional view of God would be. I think that's why it makes more sense to them. The Open Theist will say, however that God is capable, just that He decided not to be. To me, that means you'd be correct but most of them do not see this logical problem that you and I see here. Some do, but their explanations haven't appeased to date, for me.

How specifically is your God actually involved in this apparently natural world Lon?

This one is actually easier than you'd think so I'm always perplexed it comes up. David Attenborough is an agnostic who narrates quite a few nature productions. He said something similar to you, that he finds it hard to believe there is a god who would make a worm that attaches itself to the retina, blinding it's host. His mistake, I believe, is this: 1) He isn't a theologian so isn't really asking a question he is 'committed' to finding the answer to. In other words, for him, it is a perplexing passing comment rather than an assessment. He is simply asking a question that he hasn't the answer to. Similarly, I think you are doing the same.

As briefly as I can, the answer lies in consequences. After the fall, we began doing things we'd not have done prior to it (like dumping sewage into the sea). We'd have been the kinds of conscientious stewards we are supposed to be. So, how does that answer your question? It answers the question (and incidentally why I'm not as bothered by evolutionary propositions) by saying 'we' are more responsible for how the planet currently behaves through our choices. Consequences follow all actions. We may not 'know' what is exactly our fault (and I more than agree ignorance is usually a very good excuse) but consequences are consequences.

 

[Lon]

I'm not sure there is a time when someone is ready, or not ready, for the open view. However, one thing is for sure; it removes a big argument in the atheist arsenal.

I'm not sure it does, did you read Alwights' response?

 

[xAvarice]

Hi there,

Being on the IOW we probably share the same genes! but seriously though I do not know who alwight is.

I to try be nice to everyone I meet too. I generally try to be a good person and treat people as I would like to be treated. Perhaps I am a closet Christian in the Athiest ranks. we probably have more in common than we realise.

Good to see another Brit here. Perhaps when we get bored with our religious stalemate we can have a good go at our politicians instead.

Cheers

Robert

Love me or hate me is a cool guy, I've never heard of a British Christian though. :idunno:

It'd be better for our society if Anglican was a misnomer for a type of fisherman.

Interesting statement, Guy. But surely love and free will are separate concepts?

Love is an emotional response and is not susceptible to rational free will choices. You can't "choose" to fall in or out of love. Emotional responses exist without free will, so love does not depend on free will either.

He means, YOU MUST LOVE GOD. Geddit?

The evidence is concept-experiential. And you can't experience someone else's concept of God. So, in effect, you're looking for external objective evidence for an internal subjective conceptual experience.

You have rendered yourself incapable of receiving that which you claim to need.

Amen.

 

[Lon]

Suffering from an attack of humourlessness again?

NO! I was actually hoping!

On this thread ...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91754&page=7

... you fully supported Angel4Truth's dazzling display of armchair psychology and do-it-yourself phoney logic and challenged unbelievers to find something wrong with it.

I did find lots of things wrong with her No True Scotsman "You were never one of us" approach - yet we were greeted with a deafening silence. From every christian including yourself.

Care to make an assessment of your "honest" approach here?

Yes sir.

Explain this scenario to me:

Unbeliever - I was once God's child :up:
Christian - How is this possible since you don't think He exists?
Unbeliever - I was mistaken back then, not now.
Christian - Then how does it make sense that you 'were' God's child?
Unbeliever - Because I was once with God's other children ,with them.
Christian - But you don't believe they are God's children either. You couldn't have been one of God's children.
Unbeliever - Do NOT tell me I wasn't once one of God's Children!
Christian - I am VERY confused.

 

[xAvarice]

NO! I was actually hoping!


Yes sir.

Explain this scenario to me:

Unbeliever - I was once God's child :up:
Christian - How is this possible since you don't think He exists?
Unbeliever - I was mistaken back then, not now.
Christian - Then how does it make sense that you 'were' God's child?
Unbeliever - Because I was once with God's other children ,with them.
Christian - But you don't believe they are God's children either. You couldn't have been one of God's children.
Unbeliever - Do NOT tell me I wasn't once one of God's Children!
Christian - I am VERY confused.

With this upsetting lack of understanding - it would surprise me to no end if you accepted a convert from another religion.

Unbeliever - I was once Allah's child :up:
Christian - How is this possible since you don't think He exists?
Unbeliever - I was mistaken back then, not now.
Christian - Then how does it make sense that you 'were' Allah's child?
Unbeliever - Because I was once with Allah's other children ,with them.
Christian - But you don't believe they are Allah's children either. You couldn't have been one of Allah's children.
Unbeliever - Do NOT tell me I wasn't once one of Allah's Children!
Christian - I am VERY confused.

One part is right.

Love you Lon, don't take this badly.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Hmm, let's concede for a moment that you have undeniable proof, I'm not sure that I want to spend eternity in the heaven described in the bible, Tertullian had the only real appealing attribute to consign to it, however - would I like to burn forever? I don't think it's something to be brave about, bravery is only possible with an objective in mind, perhaps I'd be stupid enough to try it. (I suppose you'll grant me that)

It'd be a shame if God didn't give you the chance to test the "rooms" as go all the good afterlife jokes.

If it's one or the other, I'd most likely choose heaven, although I'd prefer... darkness and peace, I'd want to return to the place antepartum to me.

So yes, I haven't even ruled out the possibility of deism... it could be possible, likely is a stretch, but possible. Theism still has some way to go after that, but my anxiety ceases depending upon evidence.

Evidence is the key.

Thats most likely why you do not have the evidence you need. You don't seem to want truth admitted from your own words. You would only want it the way you would like it the best, even in the face of undeniable evidence.

Why would a god created by you be worthy of your worship? Would that not make YOU the god?

 

[xAvarice]

Thats most likely why you do not have the evidence you need. You don't seem to want truth admitted from your own words. You would only want it the way you would like it the best, even in the face of undeniable evidence.

Why would a god created by you be worthy of your worship? Would that not make YOU the god?

You lost me.

I'm not interested in creating a God or playing one.

What I said was the opposite of your interpretation, I don't resist the truth, here I am... theologyonline.

"You would only want it the way you would like it the best"

I would PREFER to spend my life that I didn't have a choice in the way I want?

...Yes? What use is a gift one cannot reject? If you CANNOT reject a gift - it cannot be named so.

 

[Lon]

With this upsetting lack of understanding - it would surprise me to no end if you accepted a convert from another religion.

Unbeliever - I was once Allah's child :up:
Christian - How is this possible since you don't think He exists?
Unbeliever - I was mistaken back then, not now.
Christian - Then how does it make sense that you 'were' Allah's child?
Unbeliever - Because I was once with Allah's other children ,with them.
Christian - But you don't believe they are Allah's children either. You couldn't have been one of Allah's children.
Unbeliever - Do NOT tell me I wasn't once one of Allah's Children!
Christian - I am VERY confused.

One part is right.

Love you Lon, don't take this badly.

It's sad, but you have the change exactly right. See, for Christians, we aren't born into it. You cannot be born a Christian. It is an oddity among any other religion.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You lost me.

I'm not interested in creating a God or playing one.

What I said was the opposite of your interpretation, I don't resist the truth, here I am... theologyonline.

"You would only want it the way you would like it the best"

I would PREFER to spend my life that I didn't have a choice in the way I want?

...Yes? What use is a gift one cannot reject? If you CANNOT reject a gift - it cannot be named so.

Your post itself alludes to you not really wanting the God of the bible to be anything accurate, and you arent thrilled with the idea of heaven, and then give your own description of how you think it should be.

Does that sound like someone who wants the truth at any cost?

 

[GuySmiley]

Interesting statement, Guy. But surely love and free will are separate concepts?

Love is an emotional response and is not susceptible to rational free will choices. You can't "choose" to fall in or out of love. Emotional responses exist without free will, so love does not depend on free will either.

If you program your computer so that every time you boot up it tells you "I love you", do you feel loved? No, love must be freely given. The computer cannot also reject or hate you, it has no choice. I don't mean its a choice as in you could arbitrarily love anyone, but that hate and rejection is a possibility also. You aren't forced into love, although maybe you think it is that way, being an emotional response.

 

[GuySmiley]

With this upsetting lack of understanding - it would surprise me to no end if you accepted a convert from another religion.

Unbeliever - I was once Allah's child :up:
Christian - How is this possible since you don't think He exists?
Unbeliever - I was mistaken back then, not now.
Christian - Then how does it make sense that you 'were' Allah's child?
Unbeliever - Because I was once with Allah's other children ,with them.
Christian - But you don't believe they are Allah's children either. You couldn't have been one of Allah's children.
Unbeliever - Do NOT tell me I wasn't once one of Allah's Children!
Christian - I am VERY confused.

One part is right.

Love you Lon, don't take this badly.

I think you just supported Lon's point. Yes, the proper conclusion is that the unbeliever was never one of Allah's children.

 

[TheTB]

Hypothetical discussion..

Hypothetical discussion..

NO! I was actually hoping!


Yes sir.

Explain this scenario to me:

Unbeliever - I was once God's child :up:
Christian - How is this possible since you don't think He exists?
Unbeliever - I was mistaken back then, not now.
Christian - Then how does it make sense that you 'were' God's child?
Unbeliever - Because I was once with God's other children ,with them.
Christian - But you don't believe they are God's children either. You couldn't have been one of God's children.
Unbeliever - Do NOT tell me I wasn't once one of God's Children!
Christian - I am VERY confused.

I have probably missed part of a thread but I can't see what relevance this has to anything..

Personally......

Athiest- once believed their might be a god. I don't now.
Christian - how is this possible as you don't think he exists.
Athiest - I was mistaken back then, not now.

That's all that is needed. I once believed something, now I don't. I am quite happy to accept that as a child, with my childlike ignorance of the world, I was happy to accept what my parents and teachers taught me.

As an adult I learned to question what I had been taught. When I failed to get satisfactory answers I rejected the erroneous teaching in favour of knowledge, facts and satisfactory evidence.

What is the point of this little dialogue?

Cheers

Robert.

 

[TheTB]

AI

AI

If you program your computer so that every time you boot up it tells you "I love you", do you feel loved? No, love must be freely given. The computer cannot also reject or hate you, it has no choice. I don't mean its a choice as in you could arbitrarily love anyone, but that hate and rejection is a possibility also. You aren't forced into love, although maybe you think it is that way, being an emotional response.

The way artificial intelligence is developing it probably won't be long though. My Microsoft windows pc definitely hates me. But I'm pretty sure my Mac loves me. It always does anything I ask of it and never says no.

Robert.

 

[TheTB]

Originality

Originality

I'm the Christian and you are the atheist.

Try google, you aren't original.

You are right. It was all written in the 'good' book before I ever found it! Just open and read you will see all these passages are in there.

Anyway, it's very difficult be original. We all regurgitate the ideas of our teachers. I have not seen a single original idea or concept in any of these forums. But that is not a bad thing.billions of people have died before us to give us the state of knowledge we have today.

We could spend our whole lives studying and still never encounter an original idea.

Robert

 

[Lon]

I have probably missed part of a thread but I can't see what relevance this has to anything..

Personally......

Athiest- once believed their might be a god. I don't now.
Christian - how is this possible as you don't think he exists.
Athiest - I was mistaken back then, not now.

That's all that is needed. I once believed something, now I don't. I am quite happy to accept that as a child, with my childlike ignorance of the world, I was happy to accept what my parents and teachers taught me.

As an adult I learned to question what I had been taught. When I failed to get satisfactory answers I rejected the erroneous teaching in favour of knowledge, facts and satisfactory evidence.

What is the point of this little dialogue?

Cheers

Robert.

My apologies, as you are new. It is an ongoing discussion about true Scotsmen which I'm sure you are familiar with (two links given here), but you are correct it is a carry-over from another thread (sometimes I get sucked in and sometimes I remember where I am and suggest we move such over to the actual threads). I missed this one, sorry.

 

[Lon]

Damn right! If he wants my respect he has to earn it like anyone else.
And if he wants my love, then has a lot of making good to do after all people who have been slaughtered and brutalised at his command.

Well, now after admitting to having been on a few other forums like this (I seriously doubt you have been on a forum quite like this! ), then this shouldn't be an excuse anymore. God can be who He is, whether He meets your or my expectation. Sheer power of His alone, should suggest you haven't got a prayer in resisting, such that your current temporary 'sense' of autonomy is just that (both temporary and a false sense of). PS, watch the language we do have kids even though this particular isn't shocking, you can get a warning for such.

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)[

Barbarian language for barbarian understanding. We couldn't just 'move' American natives from their land you know. No? How about gently persuading Bin Laden to stop aggression? I guess I'm saying to er, situationalize your situational ethics, like they are supposed to be. We tend to judge pictures with appropriate backgrounds. You'd be right to judge a Looney Toons picture if they had a decapitation, not so much if it is the Itchy and Scratchy Show.

And what kind of sick being would dream this one up:

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Oh, then it is just 'your' sin that you are against punishing? I didn't do this one so wasn't particularly worried about it.... Do you deserve to be stoned for it? How in the world should I know, we don't do this here in my house. On a serious note, how do you stop barbarians from being barbarians? My answer: You set the low bar low and begin there, just like if I had a gym class of overweight kids. I suppose you'd think me horrible for offering snow cones if they get done with the mile?

So a young girl who was raped perhaps had this to look forward to if any man then ever took her as a wife!

We accidentally put people to death who really weren't murderers. Does the Empire do this too? (I'm trying to figure out who we can blame and persecute when we get it wrong).

Oh yes. This god of yours has an awful lot to answer for as far as I am concerned.

I don't seem to remember any story where a rape victim or virgin was put to death. Do you think they never checked out facts like this, just went straight to stoning? Do you think a father would let his daughter do this when she comes to him and tells of such a thing (etc.)? Come on, think a bit harder, I think you gave up on the OT way too easily. I have thought long and hard about each of these and have come up with quite a few readily available answers and I'm not even Jewish (The Christian need not overtly get excited but the Jews still might have quite a bit of heat over these matters, ask them if they still stone or not and why).

The fact is bad stuff happens in the world, it always has, always will and god does not get involved one way or another. So what's the point?

Cheers
Robert

The parable of the wheat and tares is one of His given reasons: "Don't pull the weeds lest you kill the wheat." It might not suffice for you, but at least start there.

 

[TheTB]

My apologies, as you are new. It is an ongoing discussion about true Scotsmen which I'm sure you are familiar with (two links given here), but you are correct it is a carry-over from another thread (sometimes I get sucked in and sometimes I remember where I am and suggest we move such over to the actual threads). I missed this one, sorry.

Hey Lon,

No need to apologise. I am thoroughly enjoying our discussions and thank you for the time and effort you put into them.

You are clearly a thoughtful guy and I enjoy expanding my mind and thoughts through our dialogue.

Cheers

Robert.

 

[TheTB]

are you saying that christians have evolved from barbarians?

are you saying that christians have evolved from barbarians?

Sheer power of His alone, should suggest you haven't got a prayer in resisting, such that your current temporary 'sense' of autonomy is just that (both temporary and a false sense of).

I am alive, i do what I do and then I will die. When I am dead, I will not know of anything any more because I will be dead. Perhaps for time my memory will live on in the memories of my children. But do you remember your great great great grandparents? Do you even know what their names were? Of course not. you probably could find out. Sadly we will all die one day. And eventually we will all be forgotten. This is the of things.[/QUOTE]

PS, watch the language we do have kids even though this particular isn't shocking, you can get a warning for such.

Good tip. That was the toned down version.

Barbarian language for barbarian understanding. We couldn't just 'move' American natives from their land you know. No? How about gently persuading Bin Laden to stop aggression? I guess I'm saying to er, situationalize your situational ethics, like they are supposed to be. We tend to judge pictures with appropriate backgrounds. You'd be right to judge a Looney Toons picture if they had a decapitation, not so much if it is the Itchy and Scratchy Show.

You are right the native Americans were treated appalling by the european invaders, stealing their land, killing their people, murdering their children and brutalising their women. It is good that we now recognise the disgrace of our ancestors in this respect.

So taking that the bible in this regard is contextual, should god not now be giving us a new one to address the modern context? Perhaps one which deals with homosexuality in a humane way, or explains how we cure cancer or aids, or how the international court of human rights ought to work? The sad problem is that many people read this bible as the infallible literal writings of god.

Oh, then it is just 'your' sin that you are against punishing? I didn't do this one so wasn't particularly worried about it.... Do you deserve to be stoned for it? How in the world should I know, we don't do this here in my house. On a serious note, how do you stop barbarians from being barbarians? My answer: You set the low bar low and begin there, just like if I had a gym class of overweight kids. I suppose you'd think me horrible for offering snow cones if they get done with the mile?

Hey, I love snow cones! seriously 'stoning', setting the bar low!
Have you ever watched someone being stoned to death? This is God we are talking about. Surely such a supreme being could come up with a better method of teaching than stoning?

We accidentally put people to death who really weren't murderers. Does the Empire do this too? (I'm trying to figure out who we can blame and persecute when we get it wrong).

Yes this is a very compelling argument against the death penalty in a civilised society.

I don't seem to remember any story where a rape victim or virgin was put to death. Do you think they never checked out facts like this, just went straight to stoning? Do you think a father would let his daughter do this when she comes to him and tells of such a thing (etc.)? Come on, think a bit harder, I think you gave up on the OT way too easily. I have thought long and hard about each of these and have come up with quite a few readily available answers and I'm not even Jewish (The Christian need not overtly get excited but the Jews still might have quite a bit of heat over these matters, ask them if they still stone or not and why).

Sadly, Stoning and decapitation still happens today in middle eastern countries in the name of their faith. The victim is often a double victim whilst the perpetrators are let off free. We all know its uncivilised behaviour, even an athiest knows this.

The parable of the wheat and tares is one of His given reasons: "Don't pull the weeds lest you kill the wheat." It might not suffice for you, but at least start there.

Nice story but pointless. Today we just use weedkiller and pesticide! Anyway, should i live in fear of this god that when I die I shall be punished? 'God fearing'. This is not a good reason to me. Maybe you could scare a small child with the prospect. Enough to terrify them into a life of fearful indoctrination!

These are simple tribal stories which ancients would use to rationalise the world around them. They convey a meaning which made sense in the time and has no context today.

Cheers
Robert

 

[alwight]

I think similarly so would suggest getting an Open Theist to field this particular. I can, I think, say however that I can understand that thought, but for me, it rather makes God a bit more 'human.' Such doesn't mean you or I would be mad at him because he'd be a bit more inept as it were, at least for our initial assessment. So, I don't think the atheist could be too upset with the open theist because that God isn't in control like the traditional view of God would be. I think that's why it makes more sense to them. The Open Theist will say, however that God is capable, just that He decided not to be. To me, that means you'd be correct but most of them do not see this logical problem that you and I see here. Some do, but their explanations haven't appeased to date, for me.

I presume then Lon that you think that God is clearly evident but yet for some reason you still can't seem to point me to any God-specific evidence of this?
I simply don't see any reasons to presuppose there are any gods or a supernatural, so until such a god is actually evident then I see no reason to believe anyway that a particular god is actually running the show.
You otoh can't seem to even contemplate the possibility that this world/universe just could be only a natural phenomenon and that your particular God is not required, perhaps not existing, thus all the apparently very natural and often cruel un-godly happenings that go on which apparently you think are nevertheless overseen and controlled by your God.
All of which I think anyway tends to show no involved supernatural control by any outside agency, at least as far as our lives are concerned. For all we know the whole universe was created, as a science project perhaps, by an outside powerful god-like agent who is totally unaware of us within it. Who knows, you? Why specifically the Christian God...?

This one is actually easier than you'd think so I'm always perplexed it comes up. David Attenborough is an agnostic who narrates quite a few nature productions. He said something similar to you, that he finds it hard to believe there is a god who would make a worm that attaches itself to the retina, blinding it's host.

I'm glad you listen to David Attenborough Lon. I've just watched him describe a wasp that captures a larvae, stings it to stun it, lays an egg inside it and then buries it alive so that its offspring will have fresh and still living food. Tell me that is not something that simply developed naturally because it works, that instead it was designed that way by your God. lain:

His mistake, I believe, is this: 1) He isn't a theologian so isn't really asking a question he is 'committed' to finding the answer to. In other words, for him, it is a perplexing passing comment rather than an assessment. He is simply asking a question that he hasn't the answer to. Similarly, I think you are doing the same.

What I, and he too presumably, don't do is to presuppose, before everything else as you do it seems, that a specific God must exist and that everything therefore relates somehow to that primary presupposition. That's your big mistake imo Lon. Does theology answer questions of cold fact or is it perhaps only a type of philosophy and navel gazing?

As briefly as I can, the answer lies in consequences. After the fall, we began doing things we'd not have done prior to it (like dumping sewage into the sea). We'd have been the kinds of conscientious stewards we are supposed to be. So, how does that answer your question? It answers the question (and incidentally why I'm not as bothered by evolutionary propositions) by saying 'we' are more responsible for how the planet currently behaves through our choices. Consequences follow all actions. We may not 'know' what is exactly our fault (and I more than agree ignorance is usually a very good excuse) but consequences are consequences.

Sewage is a natural by-product of our evolved bodies that has to be dealt with or so it seems to me, but perhaps a created Adam & Eve didn't produce any, is that what you're telling me Lon?
After your supposed theological "Fall" that all changed presumably?

 

[Lon]

Hello Robert, I trimmed just a tiny bit but if I ever trim something you'd not have done, bring such up again with me and I'll try to ensure I catch it a second go-over (I usually like when others do this with some of my stuff, keeps it from being overtly lengthy).

So taking that the bible in this regard is contextual, should god not now be giving us a new one to address the modern context? Perhaps one which deals with homosexuality in a humane way, or explains how we cure cancer or aids, or how the international court of human rights ought to work? The sad problem is that many people read this bible as the infallible literal writings of god.

Two points
1) I think it is literal (at least when it isn't obviously allegorical or propositional etc.). I just don't think we should go and do likewise.
2) I think we are intelligent enough to make transitions and that God is helping those who have a hard time doing so, to do so. I wish some would listen better, but there you go. Oh yeah, and I read the NT as those new directions. As far as gays, I'm with you on the way of treating them but I yet think it a self-destructive lifestyle and counsel against it.

Hey, I love snow cones! seriously 'stoning', setting the bar low!
Have you ever watched someone being stoned to death? This is God we are talking about. Surely such a supreme being could come up with a better method of teaching than stoning?

We would 'need' to travel back in time to a different place. Muslims still stone people. Whatever God was doing with these people did need to be serious business, He was trying to point to very high standards. If you have any doubt whatsoever that we are as civilized as we are today, I'd suggest that Christianity has been a huge propulsion, not a hindrance at all.

Yes this is a very compelling argument against the death penalty in a civilised society.

I see your point here, but I don't share it fully. I would modify our laws to some degree because I'd rather see some of that $ go to victim families than supporting some we know did it.

Sadly, Stoning and decapitation still happens today in middle eastern countries in the name of their faith. The victim is often a double victim whilst the perpetrators are let off free. We all know its uncivilised behaviour, even an athiest knows this.

I'm not sure we could 'stop' stoning altogether immediately if you or I went over and tried to civilize them. We'd have to start off somewhere. I was reading a bible companion book where the Ninevites flayed people alive. Stoning might have been a step up from that kind of barbarism. All I'm saying is give the benefit of doubt when possible unless you are looking for a reason not to believe. In that case, you'd be on the right track :up: (none of this benefit of doubt rubbish!)...hopefully just a good thought-provoker here.

Nice story but pointless. Today we just use weedkiller and pesticide! Anyway, should i live in fear of this god that when I die I shall be punished? 'God fearing'. This is not a good reason to me. Maybe you could scare a small child with the prospect. Enough to terrify them into a life of fearful indoctrination!

These are simple tribal stories which ancients would use to rationalise the world around them. They convey a meaning which made sense in the time and has no context today.

Cheers
Robert

None of my children were ever scared into becoming christians. I might reserve it for a stubborn adult, however, especially one that might be facing an angry society, let alone an angry God. What I am saying is that God would plan to use believers and nonbelievers together to show those who he would save, about the sin condition, about their place in the world, etc. I don't think of literal flames tormenting an immaterial soul, so see these images figuratively. I do know that living with my own sin, by myself, forever isn't a pleasant thought. I had a dream once where I died and after death, I was just in darkness, alone, by myself. That, frankly, would be more than enough hell for me. There are all kinds of motivators for wanting God. For me, a promise of being away from those things of mine that have hurt others and myself in the past, is one very good reason to hope there is a God, if I didn't know if he existed or not. I do know He exists now, but I'm telling you what got me to think of Him in the first place.