How Can One Be Held Responsible If One Is Never Called?

Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
How Can One Be Held Responsible If One Is Never Called?

One of these forum posts, can't remember which one and who it originated from, said that the reason atheists can't believe is that we havn't been called. OK fine, God's not interested in us. I guess (at least in the minds of some Christians) he knows in his infintie wisdom that we'll reject him anyway, so he doesn't waste his time and effort ( can time be in short supply to God? Can effort be tiring to an omnipotent being?). Why then, did he create us in the first place if he knew we would reject him? I guess this is the pardoxical argument against free will, but it just struck me as odd and something that many Christians haven't given much thought to. Most Christians describe the "calling" as a response to an "inside emptiness", something which I've never felt, except temporarily when a loved one or pet died or I broke up with a girlfriend. I eventually got over it. This "emptiness" has been explained by secular psychology, but for the sake of argument, lets say we just didn't get that "hole". Did God create us merely to condemn us, or allow us to condemn ourselves?

Another form of "calling" I've heard has been described as "godly sorrow", a physically painful form of guilt. Well certainly I've felt guilt before when I did something that went against my own moral standards and upbringing, but it never motivated me to seek something invisible to assuage it, rather it motivated me to A) cease such actions and B) Attempt to right whatever I felt i did wrong. Again, this is something that secular psychologists recognize and even have a name for it-scrupulosity, which they say is a form of OCD. Here again, does God just not call us? What purpose do we serve in the Divine Plan if we're created to be condemned? To "test" Christians? If so, how many Christians here pass God's test?What criteria determines if you pass it?

I won't even touch on how unfair it sounds, simply because the answer would be that we're still given a choice and God's ways are "higher" and it will "all make sense by and by". Glad it works for you Christians.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick wrote:One of

Marty Hamrick wrote:

One of these forum posts, can't remember which one and who it originated from, said that the reason atheists can't believe is that we havn't been called. OK fine, God's not interested in us. I guess (at least in the minds of some Christians) he knows in his infintie wisdom that we'll reject him anyway, so he doesn't waste his time and effort ( can time be in short supply to God? Can effort be tiring to an omnipotent being?). Why then, did he create us in the first place if he knew we would reject him? I guess this is the pardoxical argument against free will, but it just struck me as odd and something that many Christians haven't given much thought to. Most Christians describe the "calling" as a response to an "inside emptiness", something which I've never felt, except temporarily when a loved one or pet died or I broke up with a girlfriend. I eventually got over it. This "emptiness" has been explained by secular psychology, but for the sake of argument, lets say we just didn't get that "hole". Did God create us merely to condemn us, or allow us to condemn ourselves?

Another form of "calling" I've heard has been described as "godly sorrow", a physically painful form of guilt. Well certainly I've felt guilt before when I did something that went against my own moral standards and upbringing, but it never motivated me to seek something invisible to assuage it, rather it motivated me to A) cease such actions and B) Attempt to right whatever I felt i did wrong. Again, this is something that secular psychologists recognize and even have a name for it-scrupulosity, which they say is a form of OCD. Here again, does God just not call us? What purpose do we serve in the Divine Plan if we're created to be condemned? To "test" Christians? If so, how many Christians here pass God's test?What criteria determines if you pass it?

I won't even touch on how unfair it sounds, simply because the answer would be that we're still given a choice and God's ways are "higher" and it will "all make sense by and by". Glad it works for you Christians.

 

If I were standing on a mesa with 1000 caged blind dogs, should I be held responsible if I chose to let them loose, to run around and eventually run off cliffs to their deaths? I tend to think so, and I've always seen this as a good analogy to the common Christian belief that those who don't accept Jesus as Saviour will be condemned to eternal fire. 

Ostensibly, God/Christ knew (being omniscient) that non-believers would not believe, the same as I would have known that the blind dogs would march off the mesa.

 

 


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1707
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Marty, I come from a

Marty,
I come from a fundamentalist church who believes in free will, but after becoming an atheist and re-reading the bible I think it makes a much stronger case for predestination. If mankind only thinks of evil all day long then there is nothing in him to turn to god. Jesus said no man comes to him but who the father has given him. The elect are chosen.


But this is how I see that. It was an evolving concept of god. The people who thought up this religion wrote that all the others had to do was follow these rules. Well in time they realized they could not simply tell them they had to take it up a notch. They had to heap on the others how evil they were and boy were they gonna get it from god. That didn't work so they became violent, torturing the unfaithful, murdering their families, etc. Thus showing the wrath of their god against non-beleivers. When things continued thru the centuries and even their god didn't come through for them and they themselves were persecuted they decided to add this component. God will not chose to save some. Of course it ultimately went to only a remnant because they couldn't convince the "world"

Well that is the jist of my idea. Not enough time now to flesh it out.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1707
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Rereading my comments I

Rereading my comments I realize I just did a tangent but hope it stands on its own as how this came to be.


I thought of a lame comparison cuz I still got fundie skills.
Men build cars and planes and other vehicles. Some they make for practical use, some for looks and some for destruction. A car derby is an example of for destruction. They ram the cars into one another to see who us the last man/car standing. Some vehicles are smashed to test their safety, worthiness if you will. God does it for his glory. The bible is quite clear. If it doesn't make the big man upstairs look good it ain't gonna get done.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10316
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:If I were

jeffreyalex wrote:
If I were standing on a mesa with 1000 caged blind dogs ~snip~ belief that those who don't accept Jesus as Saviour will be condemned to eternal fire.

That metaphor implies either:
1: That hell is more eternal than, and unchangable by, god itself. You cannot turn a cliff into a plain. But gods have been credited with far greater things.
Or..
2: The god is a prick and undeserving of worship or even acknowledgement. Most deity based religions have a deity whom can conduct direct and indirect communication with people. Which happens to be something people have never done except with other people (and maybe god[s]). You can't tell the blind dogs there is a cliff or what will happen if they stray too close. Yet gods have constantly been said to have the capacity to communicate with people.
So why aren't they?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I posted this on the CARM

I posted this on the CARM site and so far its been ignored. Does that surprise anyone here? Good comments, guys.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:jeffreyalex

Vastet wrote:
jeffreyalex wrote:
If I were standing on a mesa with 1000 caged blind dogs ~snip~ belief that those who don't accept Jesus as Saviour will be condemned to eternal fire.
That metaphor implies either: 1: That hell is more eternal than, and unchangable by, god itself. You cannot turn a cliff into a plain. But gods have been credited with far greater things. Or.. 2: The god is a prick and undeserving of worship or even acknowledgement. Most deity based religions have a deity whom can conduct direct and indirect communication with people. Which happens to be something people have never done except with other people (and maybe god[s]). You can't tell the blind dogs there is a cliff or what will happen if they stray too close. Yet gods have constantly been said to have the capacity to communicate with people. So why aren't they?

 

Uh, I was making a point for the anti-theist side, here, V. You picked that point up. Feel free to play with the analogy to make it stronger (for example, perhaps you could add that I'd be able to, being omnipotent, just build a little fence around the perimeter; or maybe, since those analogy-dogs already exist whereas man had to be created, you could add that it would be even worse and would make me even more morally reprehensible if I had specifically dragged those dogs up there or bred them just so that I could let them loose on a mesa).

 

Anyway, I don't believe there is a hell or any sort of eternal damnation. I think if there is a personal God, and one chooses to live a whole life denying him, that's a tragedy. But that's as close to hell as it gets, no lakes of fire or rains of brimstone. 


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I think if there is a

Quote:

I think if there is a personal God, and one chooses to live a whole life denying him, that's a tragedy. But that's as close to hell as it gets, no lakes of fire or rains of brimstone.

 

Subjective and relative judgement.Not everyone would find such existence a bad thing, much like there are people who prefer wearing uncomfortable clothes and shoes or living in an apartment in the summer with no AC. I'm reminded of the story of when missionaries visited Inuits in the frozen north and they told them about the etrnal fires and heat of hell. They eagerly asked, "How do we get there?"

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10316
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:Uh, I was

jeffreyalex wrote:
Uh, I was making a point for the anti-theist side, here, V.

It doesn't look that way, and it's still wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:jeffreyalex

Vastet wrote:
jeffreyalex wrote:
Uh, I was making a point for the anti-theist side, here, V.
It doesn't look that way, and it's still wrong.

 

A God which creates people only so that they could be eternally damned. 

A guy who breeds blind animals only to let them wander off cliffs. 

You don't see the analogy?

C'mon. You're just an angry guy. You don't even see when someone's making an argument for your side. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10316
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:Vastet

jeffreyalex wrote:

Vastet wrote:
jeffreyalex wrote:
Uh, I was making a point for the anti-theist side, here, V.
It doesn't look that way, and it's still wrong.

 

A God which creates people only so that they could be eternally damned.

Funny, most religions demand more than damnation. Alot more. Damnation is the punishment for not following the demands.

Quote:
A guy who breeds blind animals only to let them wander off cliffs.

You don't see the analogy?

Nope. Because there's a lot more attached to gods than simple cruelty.

Quote:

C'mon. You're just an angry guy.

Aww how cute, the retard has given up and is resorting to ad hom. Unfortunately for him, I'm alot better at it than he is.

Pro tip: Don't start with me, and I'll return the favour.

Quote:
You don't even see when someone's making an argument for your side.

You aren't making an argument for my side. And even if you were, I'd still correct flawed reasoning.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:jeffreyalex

Vastet wrote:
jeffreyalex wrote:

Vastet wrote:
jeffreyalex wrote:
Uh, I was making a point for the anti-theist side, here, V.
It doesn't look that way, and it's still wrong.

 

A God which creates people only so that they could be eternally damned.

Funny, most religions demand more than damnation. Alot more. Damnation is the punishment for not following the demands.
Quote:
A guy who breeds blind animals only to let them wander off cliffs.

You don't see the analogy?

Nope. Because there's a lot more attached to gods than simple cruelty.
Quote:

C'mon. You're just an angry guy.

Aww how cute, the retard has given up and is resorting to ad hom. Unfortunately for him, I'm alot better at it than he is. Pro tip: Don't start with me, and I'll return the favour.
Quote:
You don't even see when someone's making an argument for your side.
You aren't making an argument for my side. And even if you were, I'd still correct flawed reasoning.

So the fault of my analogy is that it successfully makes the point it seeks to make: that it is morally terrible to create beings knowing they will only suffer and then die. And the problem is that you can supplement the point by noting that the theological claims are even worse than that? "Funny, most religions demand more than damnation. Alot more. Damnation is the punishment for not following the demands." Great, it only strengthens the point.

So, in an argument you would have the opposition agree with the simple example I gave, and then add that not only do we die like the dogs do, but we're tortured for eternity, which makes the Christian God infinitely more of a monster than the hypothetical animal breeder. 

By the way, I think you're a retard, too. Also, "a lot" is two words, lol. Oof, I can feel you getting mad, pro. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote: By the

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

By the way, I think you're a retard, too. Also, "a lot" is two words, lol.  

According to my English prof ( I actually am a part time student now, better late than never right ?) alot and a lot are incorrect. The word is allot. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

By the way, I think you're a retard, too. Also, "a lot" is two words, lol.  

According to my English prof ( I actually am a part time student now, better late than never right ?) alot and a lot are incorrect. The word is allot. 

 

"Allot" is a verb which means to apportion something to someone. For example, "I was alloted only five ____ ." "A lot" is a way to say "a large amount" like "a whole lot full".

Anyway, I was just being annoying. Sorry. I swear I get caught up in this forum stuff. It's so the opposite of me in real life, where I don't give an eff about anything. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex

jeffreyalex wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

By the way, I think you're a retard, too. Also, "a lot" is two words, lol.  

According to my English prof ( I actually am a part time student now, better late than never right ?) alot and a lot are incorrect. The word is allot. 

 

"Allot" is a verb which means to apportion something to someone. For example, "I was alloted only five ____ ." "A lot" is a way to say "a large amount" like "a whole lot full".

Anyway, I was just being annoying. Sorry. I swear I get caught up in this forum stuff. It's so the opposite of me in real life, where I don't give an eff about anything. 

Actually I was just being a smartass. Probably one of the reasons that things get misconstrued from time to time around here. Words on page can be interpreted much differently with the absence of facial expressions and tones of voice. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10316
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:So the

jeffreyalex wrote:
So the fault of my analogy is that it successfully makes the point it seeks to make:

No. The fault of your analogy is that it fails as an analogy.
Though the point you seek to make is one I agree with, your analogy is inapplicable to said point. After all, humans do more than suffer and die without any freedom at all.

Quote:
By the way, I think you're a retard, too.

Of course you do. Most retards regard genius as retarded. This is hardly a surprise.

Quote:
Also, "a lot" is two words, lol.

Or one. All grammar nazi's suffer from the delusion that language is stale and incapable of evolving. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The ultimate irony is that if grammar nazi's got their way, their languages would die.

Quote:
Oof, I can feel you getting mad, pro. 

Projection: the last bastion of hope for the loser.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No. The fault

Vastet wrote:

No. The fault of your analogy is that it fails as an analogy. Though the point you seek to make is one I agree with, your analogy is inapplicable to said point. After all, humans do more than suffer and die without any freedom at all.

Of course you do. Most retards regard genius as retarded. This is hardly a surprise.

Or one. All grammar nazi's suffer from the delusion that language is stale and incapable of evolving. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The ultimate irony is that if grammar nazi's got their way, their languages would die.

Projection: the last bastion of hope for the loser.

 

1) So you agree with the point, the only problem is the question of the extent of suffering. Death is nothing compared to Hell for eternity. Yes, granted. Analogous situations are not identical situations, they're comparable situation due to their underlying structure. They both pose a question, Is it wrong to create a sentient being in order to harm it? The analogy gets to the point and avoids the baggage and drama attached to original scenario with God and damnation. Great.

The analogy even makes clear what some possible responses might be. For example, the dogs were blind, and allegedly God knew who wouldn't accept Him. But maybe we aren't blind and maybe God doesn't know what free choice we'll make. 

2) Actually most idiots regard themselves as geniuses. Way to prove the rule. 

3) The fact that language evolves does not make it that there are no spelling rules or grammatical conventions now. This—"riht"—is not a proper spelling of "right", even if it one day might be. Right now, the words "a" and "lot" are two words. No, you're not a crusader of progress. 

Either way, I only mentioned it to piss you off. Judging from that indignant response you bothered writing, looks like it worked. 

4) Oooooo, I'm so angry. You figured me out. Me and my projection. YOU'RE a GENIUS! How did I not believe you when you cleaearrlyyy told me? Ahh, I'm such, like, a silly loooseerrrrrr. 

lmao, I bet you'd wanna hit me in person. 

 

Wow, being a troll can be fun ;]