How is god different than the Romans/Muslims?

Question

God believes in himself.
Atheists do not believe in the christian god.
God sends atheists to hell.
Hell is eternal torture.
Atheists get tortured for not believing what god believes.

How is this different than the Romans feeding Christians to the lions for not believing what the the Romans did? How is he different than muslims who cut the heads off of nonbelievers?

This is a question. How can you see this as a threat?

So god has the authority to do it? Romans had free will, so I guess by that logic, it was ok to feed the lions.

willys56cj5 . I am operating on christian logic.

Answer 1

the romans/muslims are/were real.

Answer 2

You have to remember that Christians "say" God will send the atheists to hell. Last time I checked, nobody had heard from him lately. Even the bible as we know it has been copied by human hand (and possibly corrupted). Human's have shaped the religions. We really don't know what God will do or who he is. The Christian God (which is your question, not God in general, but the specific deity of the Christian religion) is shaped by Christian experience, so yes, he does portray the same behavior as the Romans, it's called revenge. Islam is a younger religion than Christianity, Jesus is one of their prophets also. Their religion was shaped by the early persecution of the pagans as well.

Answer 3

It different in that Romans ACTUALLY threw Christian to the lions. Muslims ACTUALLY decapitate nonbeliever. And some Christians SAY that God send athiests to hell. They don't know that he does or not. They've never seen an athiest burning in hellfire. They just say it because they are mean and hypocrites who refuse to follow the judge not lest ye be judged part.

Answer 4

"Within the framework of scientific rationalism one arrives at the belief in the nonexistence of God, not because of certain knowledge, but because of a sliding scale of methods. At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor. These are philosophical arguments, but they also constitute the bedrock of all of science, and cannot therefore be dismissed as non-scientific. The reason we put our trust in these two principles is because their application in the empirical sciences has led to such spectacular successes throughout the last three centuries." [6]
The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the Middle Eastern, Biblical deity called God as described in holy scriptures, such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an, by identifying contradictions between different scriptures, contradictions within a single scripture, or contradictions between scripture and known facts.
The problem of evil (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of perceivable evil or suffering, which can easily be shown to exist. Already Epicure pointed out the contradiction, stating that if an omnipotent God existed, the evil in the world should be impossible. As there is evil in the world, the god must either not be omnipotent or he must not be omnibenevolent. If he is not omnipotent, he is not God; if he is not omnibenevolent, he is not God the Allmercyful, but an evil creature. Similar arguments have been performed by Schopenhauer.
The argument from poor design contests the idea that a god created life, on the basis that lifeforms exhibit poor or malevolent design, which can be easily explained using evolution and naturalism.
The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent god who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. This argument is contested by the claim that God wants to test humans to see who has the most faith. However, this assertion is dismissed by the argument surrounding the problem of evil.

Answer 5

First of all, God does not send anyone to hell. Each individual does it to themselves by choosing to turn away from God. God is the creator of the universe. Romans and Muslims are human and are therefore born sinners. People have misrepresented what God has said since the beginning of man so they can push their own "religious" agendas, which they think gives them the right to torture people who don't believe in what they do.

Answer 6

God is the supreme authority. Man takes authority upon himself that he does not have and should not have. It is God's right and only God's right to save and condemn people. He makes the rules and we have to live with them. Just because you do not like the rules and do not want to obey them does not excuse you from following the rules. God is no respecter of persons, meaning that he will not set aside the rules for anyone, including you. If you think that he will, then you are being arrogant. If you think that God will not throw you into hell for disobedience to his authority, then you are a fool. Jesus loves you and he wants you to come to his saving grace. He wants you saved, not dying eternally in hellfire.

Answer 7

The Christian God created all things and made away for all that would believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for their sins. He does not send anyone to hell they send them self to hell when they reject what He did for them The Romans/Muslims kill people for their pleasure thinking their god will reward them in the hereafter. 1 Corinthians 15: 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Corinthians 15: 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Answer 8

Yeah, insane muslims and romans were/are real people. God is just a fictional character made up by man, much like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Answer 9

How is a gold ball different from the space shuttle?

They both have curved surfaces.
They both have dimpled areas.
Both are made from both natural and man-made materials.
Both have an outside and an inside.
Both travel thru the air at incredible speeds.

In using your own argument, you'd sure make a funny astronaut travelling to space on a golf ball! =D

Answer 10

The difference is that God, by definition, is perfectly righteous. As a father disciplines a child, so those in authority should discipline those whom they rule. Unfortunately, corrupt leaders "punish" for wrong reasons. If God is not corrupt, then his punishment is just and not capricious.

Answer 11

I would assume that the Christian answer is probably "Because God has the right to"...

But I agree, where's the morality in exercising such punishment for "not having the same knowledge that God has"?