If you can't trust god then who the hell can you trust?

I was being facetious. 

lol 

Anyone with a white van and candy. 

   I am god , what's there to trust ???

are you all fucking nuts ?

LOL XD

Well yes I’m a nuts . XD

Stalin : Submit to me you ! My communism is the salvation ! You will never understand communism submit to it ! You need to trust me !

Mindless unit 1 : OK I trust you.

Hitlet : Trust me on this concentration camp idea its fort the best !

MU1: OK.

Crazy sect leader : I’m god believe in me !

MU1: OK.

KANE: I’m the messier ! You can’t kill the messier ! Peace true power !

MU1: Yesss

Probably Satan, his younger brother. 

No, Roman Catholic. However, if you work within the framework that God is the Creator of all that is, then he is by definition the progenitor of, and directly the one who gave life to, any entity whose existance predates the beginning of sexual reproduction after The Fall of Man. Thus, just as God is said in the abrahamic traditions to be 'the father' of all mankind, he is by the same standard 'the father' of all of the heavenly host. Ergo, all of the angels are, in the same sense that all men are, his children. Christ's specific trick is being "God's Only Begotten Son", ie: unlike Zeus et al, YHVH only knocked up ONE girl.

And it's thoughts like those that make me laugh at people who get all upset at the Mormons actually being willing to say that Satan is, in a manner of speaking, Christ's brother, but are still willing to call themselves 'brothers and sisters in Christ'.  

I don't think it's irrational to "trust" God.  Since theists believe God to be extremely powerful (whether God is literally all-powerful or not), and since theists do not believe there to be anything more powerful than God, then it makes sense to throw in with God.  Of course, this isn't exactly the same thing as trust.  It's more of a gamble, but a relatively safe one given the evidence the theist believes he has.   

True, power does not imply goodness.  But that's not entirely relevant.  What it comes down to is this:  do we have enough evidence to believe that the Judaeo-Christian God has the power to torture us for all eternity if we refuse to submit to his will?  If we do, then it would make sense to be obedient.  Not just out of rational self-interest but also out of concern for others, as you would not want any person to be condemned to eternal torture in hell by this God, and so you would want to convince others to save themselves by submitting to this deity. 

Once again, this isn't really the same thing as "trust," but it leads to the same result:  obedience to God.   

Ok, we'll let's assume that the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God has been established.  Now we have to decide whether or not we can trust the claims of this being that he will reward us for obedience and punish us (eternally) for disobedience.  Could he by lying? Certainly, that's a possibility.  For instance, perhaps this being does not have any power over what happens to us when we die.  Or perhaps this is an elaborate test.  Perhaps he will in fact reward unbelievers for using their intellect and following their conscience and punish believers for their blind, unthinking obedience.  This situation is similar to that of Pascal's Wager, with the difference being that we're assuming that this God's existence has already been shown to be true.

I tend to think the safest option here would be obedience, taking this God at his word, although after having thought about it, I realize that even this is a pretty big risk.  However, if we set aside the possibility that God, contrary to his word, is going to punish believers and reward unbelievers, then I definitely think obedience is the best option.  Even if it is unlikely God is telling the truth, the potential consequences of disobedience are too high (eternal torment).  Disobeying God isn't like disobeying some human dictator where the consequences are inarguably finite.  

I do acknowledge however that the possibility of God punishing believers would make it difficult to arrive at a decision. 

The whole idea of god harvesting believers comes directly from biblical parables describing believers as "Good fruits" and non believers "weeds" the point is weed are going to get burned and the fruits harvested and taken to a silo or something however using outer knowledge of farming we can arrive at the right answer what happens to harvested fruits

A) We build houses for them and treat them like outer children

B) We eat them

The point is option B) is true and I found this parable very disturbing while I still believed in god.

Besides obedience to a being where you get burned or eaten I suggest disobedience and living you life to the fullest is the most logical option.

Thank you for agreeing with me on some aspects .

Please think of racing horses

-They work for humans hard

-They think they are going to be reworded (lets assume this)

-And if they get to their promise "glue factory" they get killed

where is the reword ?

If there is a shepherd of human sheep we are all meant for slaughter.

So riddle me this is it better to waist you little time on earth on following a being you cant be sure of and can expect total annihilation in return or is it better to use this time to the fullest ?

One last thing spam mail requesting you to send some money in order to get a kings fortune or something I thing no one would send this money thinking south generosity is fake and the savior king is a tricky bastard ready to scam us. I can applied this simple logic to a theoretical god and see if he will reword the faithful money senders or have his profit and mock all thus naive idiots.