This is tedious.
It appears (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that you have your own idea of what a loving God would/should do. I don't find that to be unusual. Everyone has some thoughts on this.
To be clear here, I am not telling God what he should be doing. I am pointing out a logical contradiction in Christianity which on the one hand posits a loving God, someone we would expect to act perfectly morally, including upholding basic human rights, and on the other hand a petty, vindictive tyrant who chooses to torture anyone who dares not to love him.
I appreciate this comes up a lot, so apologies if you find it tedious. I am not aware of it being done from a human rights abuse angle on CARM before, so thought that would make it less tedious for people.
I recently heard a sermon, that puts it all in perspective.
In case you haven't figured it out, the world (our planet) is a highly dangerous place. Volcanoes, Tidal Waves, Earthquakes, Pestilence, Killer viruses, and other bugs/germs that harm us. Relentless diseases plague us. Snakes, alligators, bears and hissing reptiles inhabit the world. Global warming is coming and the Bible speaks of it:
Okay, I am aware of these things. I am not sure how any of that relates to the thread topic, but we can see where this goes.
2 Peter 3:5-10
5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
I am not sure that is global warming being described. I see no mention of rising sea level.
More importantly, I see nothing that connects to the issue of freedom of religion.
This is the creation of God. He uses it for his own purposes.
I cannot find any conflict between our Constitutional right to freedom of religion and God's admonishment against idolatry.
Really? So the right to freedom of religion says you can worship the Hindu gods with impunity, whilst God says if you do he will punish not just you, but your children, your grandchild, and there children and even their children.
Christians do believe in hell and we can generalize who might be headed that way. Now me, I leave that judgment to God. I'm far too sinful to make such judgments.
Do you think anyone who rejects Jesus will get into heaven?
Do you think anyone who accepts Jesus will get sent to hell?
Most Christians seem pretty sure the answer to both these is "no", which seems to indicate going to hell is dependant purely on whether or not you accept Jesus, which is to say, whether or not you love and worship the Christian God. Do you believe differently? I appreciate some Christians reject the idea of hell altogether.
My cousin is the infamous Dan Barker from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Can you tell me about Barker's infamy?
I ask because I am very much concerned this is him exercising his human right for freedom of religion, and as such this statement here seems - inadvertently - more on topic than anything else you say.
Is it he "infamous" in your view because he is exercising his right to freedom of religion?
If so, is the real issue here that you think the human right to freedom of religion should only apply to your own religion?
My cousin is the infamous Dan Barker from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He still doesn't get it. He has had every blessing one could hope for and yet he complains and rages at God.
You seem to have a very egocentric view of religion. It is very odd that you think Barker should be a Christian because he has had a good life, and he should ignore all the pain and suffering going on right now all around the world that God could stop right now if he wanted to. And if God actually existed, of course.
Many Christians say "we live in a fallen world", but it's easily said. The truth is the world in scary place. It is also true that God does love you, but you still live in a world He created for his own purposes.
Right, and as far as I can tell, that purpose is to generate people who will love him. He is the ultimate narcissistic egomaniac, creating a vast universe and populating it with buillions of people with free will just so he can receive their love.
And if they fail him, boy does he get angry, casting them down to hell to suffer for eternity!
Which as a theology is fine; maybe that is how it really is. But how can we reconcile that with this claim that "God is love"?
If your point here is that God can do whatever the heck he wants because he is God, then okay, I agree. But that does not resolve the dichotomy that someone who is supposed to be perfectly good is the worst human rights abuser in history. If Christianity was to abandon the whole "God is love" thing, it would be fine; it would make sense. All the torture and disregard for humanity might still be judged as morally wrong, but if Christianity is no longer claiming God is good, then Christianity would be consistent; it would make sense.
But as it is, that is not the case. Christianity has an inconsistent view of God that on the one hand says he loves each and every one of us, and on the other that he tortures billions if they exercise their human right not to worship him.
www.equalityhumanrights.com
