...

But, by definition, what God does is moral and correct. He wouldn't be God otherwise. And, further, anyone who goes to hell deserved it, otherwise He woulsn't be Just.

To put it another way, God isn't nice. He doesn't do what you want. He does what is the right thing to do, on a universal scale.

Assuming he exists.

True, but Shaman's post was working on the assumption of an existant God so I just followed on.

Trust me I support what you're trying to do, but your re-inventing the wheel for about the tenth billionth time. This debate has been going on ever since the creation of the internet and it will keep going until the earth blows up.

I kinda gave up on my little crusade because big religions won't be exterminated within my lifetime (or that of my children) anyway, so why bother. If someone proves me wrong on that then I shall march at the front of the protest holding the flag.

I recently came across Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, and since I'm a nerd, I read it. It had an intresting short story in it called To Know All Things That Are In The Earth, where the rapture finally comes and people are all taken away like it says in the bible. Except that the people taken away weren't necesarily good Christians. Along with some Christians, they were Hindus, Jews, Baptists, and even some Scientologists (in one part it mentions Tom Cruise was taken away whilst in the middle of a filming). Good people, bad people, old people, young people, rich people, and poor people were taken in a way that seemed random. And the idea about this is very intresting, stated by one character: "Maybe the gap between Human intelligence and God's mind is still too large. Just because the selection process seemed random to us dosen't mean it dosen't follows a pattern that we can't understand."

The point I'm trying to make here is related to Nate saying that God does the right thing on the universal scale. We may not understand why it's not right to give me a million dollars since I was nice guy for a full year, or give the truly-fucked country of Africa peace, or letting scientists find the cure for AIDs, or other noble things that will benefit people and make life better. But in God's divine sight, where he can literally see the Big Picture, the reason it hasn't happened yet is because it would eventually be the wrong thing to do for some factor or another. Perhaps curing AIDs now means some terrible dictator will live and oppress humanity when he otherwise would have died in childbirth. Or perhaps my million dollars will end up in the hands of Cuban drug lords somehow or another. God is literally playing Universal Chess, and he sees so far ahead that he is willing to possibly sacrifice all his pawns to get the win in the end. So if bad things happen here and there (like a Holocaust, or a epidemic that makes us all slavering ghouls craving human flesh), won't it be worth it if the end is that Holy Grail: Rightness?

So basically, the perception I'm seeing here is that in God's view, the end justifies the means. While that necessarily isn't a bad thing, it makes me think: Where's the end? Or are we just the 1st or 2nd pawn in the game? How far away is that end of Rightness?

While I could probably go on about this all day, it's sort of late and I have to get up early tommorow (which by the way never happens during school breaks like I'm having right now). Plus, this is seriously undermining my image of being agnostic, since I'm at least making this assuming God is real.

Nah, agnostics can pretty much say whatever the fuck they want, as long as they shrug afterwards.

I think saying that the ends justify the means is the wrong way to think about it, because until the Rapture comes, there is no "ends" to be justified. It's just an ongoing series of events unfolding. Of course, in comes the idea of free will; i.e. God isn't actually in control, we are. So things are in such a shitty state because of us.

So and so forth

I'd say god would have given up on us a long time ago, think about it. He created everything, we fucked everything up like you wouldn't believe, god flooded the entire goddamned planet to start over and before we know it we fuck things up AGAIN. We start killing each other over faith, we killed god's SON for crying out loud! After that I'd certainly be going "Well fuck this, this ain't worth my time any more." and move over to some other edge of the universe to create Earth 2.0 and keep a tighter leash on things there.

But in his absence we have thrived and in another 1000 years god will wish he dealt with us back in the day because by then we will have discovered interstellar travel and will find Earth 2.0 and FUCK THAT UP TOO!! HAHA!

But it's possible you only think we fucked up his plans. Perhaps his inneffableness is exactly what we're doing.

Or maybe he doesn't have a plan, and he just likes to watch us mortals go about our daily business.

Edit: And by daily business, I mean human stupidity.

Or maybe there is no god and life is exactly as meaningful as it feels like. You live. You die.

Thats a very charming way of looking at things.

I MIGHT GO AND CRY NOW :fuzmad:

Trust Oanst to cut to the heart of thing.

here come the athiests

Don't you mean 'Here come the gaytheists'?

Eeeeeeythiests.

Well, I never give up. It is only on those who hang on 15 minutes after all seems lost, that hope begins to dawn, and all that.

Imagine if the Bible advocated homosexuality.

Sorry Splat.

i think i would enjoy reading the bible if it had an "about the author" section

To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

Red Dwarf ftw.

T'would be rather long.

I would be more intrested if it was signed by the author.

I'm not sure many of the original authors could even write.

Which brings up the question; if the writers of the bible could not write... then who wrote it?

God vicariously through them.

Wasn't that the whole fucking point?
ignorance

Well, yes. But they would still need the ability to put pen to paper and spell correctly.

They had pens in those days?

Quills. Whatever.

I was under the impression they put a finger in a nearby puddle, rubbed said wet finger in the dirt, and used that to write with.

You know, finger-painting God's divine message actually has a ring of truth to it, at least to me.

They had paper in those days?