What God would you rather accept?

Originally posted by ben91069
Here's the deal. For religious & spiritual folk it will be interesting to see the answers to my question. For atheists and all others, just play devil's advocate with this in presuming there is a higher power.

What I would like to hear from our members is this;

If you could choose between a God who has a set of rules that must be adhered to where some are "saved" based on following those rules - OR - a God who has no rules or constraints and everyone is "saved" yet it means that those you consider vile and "sinners" are also invited into heaven with you,

which God would you choose if you knew that the first God meant that the majority of human-kind would have to either burn in hell or be destroyed forever?

I based this question upon the proliferation of "I am now God" threads appearing on BTS, and wondered which of the two God's most people would choose. You can only pick one or the other.

If I had to choose one of the two, I would choose the latter.

I have never understood how Christians can reconcile their conception of a merciful and loving God, with their fire and brimstone beliefs. If God is loving and merciful, wouldn't he want to create a system that allows those who have rejected him and sinned, to reconcile with him? It seems that an eternity of Hell for one lifetime of sin runs counter to his claim to be merciful. If he were merciful, wouldn't he give sinners as many chances to reconcile with him as they need?

It all gets even more confusing to me when Christians claim that it is only through God's will that people are saved. If it is God's will to save some, it follows that the converse is true: it is God's will to not save others. Wouldn't that then mean that it is God's plan for you to be against him? If that is true, then I suppose that leads me to a similar conclusion that Emerson made:

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature.

-From Self-Reliance, by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Sorry for the semi-off-topic rant; I've just been thinking about this stuff a lot.

Originally posted by Core90
I have never understood how Christians can reconcile their conception of a merciful and loving God, with their fire and brimstone beliefs. If God is loving and merciful, wouldn't he want to create a system that allows those who have rejected him and sinned, to reconcile with him? It seems that an eternity of Hell for one lifetime of sin runs counter to his claim to be merciful. If he were merciful, wouldn't he give sinners as many chances to reconcile with him as they need?

Well, Jesus was sent to reconcile all sinners once and for all. The problem is most Christians have a form of godliness yet deny it has any power over them. They tend to believe that believing in Christ makes you live a good life. I am not saying one cannot appear to live a wholesome life, but by our very nature we cannot be good due to the duality of nature and thus the world itself. Christians seem to think salvation only applies to them.

Let's take a spin. Would you rather have a judge who:

1) Judged those according to their crimes and issued a judgement.

2). Let murderers, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, etc. walk around free just like all the law abiding citizens?

But that is still a loose analogy. Why? Because my judge and God says although you are guilty, I will take your sentence for you. You all got a death sentence but I'm stepping down off the bench to pay the debt for you.

THAT is the Judge and God I want to serve.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Let's take a spin. Would you rather have a judge who:

1) Judged those according to their crimes and issued a judgement.

2). Let murderers, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, etc. walk around free just like all the law abiding citizens?

But that is still a loose analogy.

Not really a good analogy seeing as murderers, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, etc. can still be forgivenc Which is the basic principle of our justice system to begin with BTW. So the second choice is really what God is all about to begin with. So now the question becomes when you reach heaven and find the murderers, rapists, child molesters and terrorists walking the streets are you going to be happy to see they found redemption or angry and jealous that they made it to heaven?

Originally posted by Jovi1
Not really a good analogy..

Am I losing my mind? Has it already gone by the wayside? Because I could have sworn I said, "But that is still a loose analogy."

But to answer your question, that is the epitome of mercy. We don't deserve it but it is still there and it is still free. No one would turn down the offer of a free pardon and decide to take the death penalty instead. Sadly, many do just that every day.

So now the question becomes when you reach heaven and find the murderers, rapists, child molesters and terrorists walking the streets are you going to be happy to see they found redemption or angry and jealous that they made it to heaven?

I would be ecstatic if everyone made it into Heaven in the end because I'm not an "I-told-you-so Christian." But the free pardon is not going to be beaten into someone who doesn't want it. Like all gifts, it can be refused even if it has already been paid for.

[edit on 1/13/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by Jovi1


That's a good point. The analogy Jesus used was one of a prostitute and tax collector. He mentioned to the Pharisees that those whom they condemned would enter Heaven before them.

We are all "prostitutes" and "tax collectors" in that as mortals we are selling ourselves for something impure if only for a time.



[edit on 12-1-2008 by ben91069]

Neither one, sorry. I don't like to play devil's advocate in threads such as these.

I am happy without a god. Period. I don't find one necessary; the universe can be better explained without magic.

reply to post by MajorMalfunction


I could not agree more MM. Adding god into the equation just dilutes the true beauty and splendor of the universe.

To answer the OP's question, the chose is clear --- option 3