6 votes

What If God Is A Brutal Authoritarian?

If you don't pay your taxes you'll go to jail.

If you don't believe in God you'll go to hell.

But of course, each is "voluntary" and you have the "free will" to object?


If force against peaceful individuals is wrong, then why would God do it to those who peacefully reject him? Just something I've been increasingly thinking about.

The reason we object to the income tax is because it's backed up by force, therefore there's no "free will" or freedom to choose otherwise without the potential for serious repercussions. Thus it's not a choice and is a tyrannical act of force against peaceful individuals and WRONG. We see the reality of the income tax - it's the act of a brute or tyrant, not the act of a peaceful or benevolent person.

Well, when it comes to this belief in a hell - I see the same glaring contradiction, only this one is much bigger.

You have free will to choose to believe in God, but if you don't then you'll be burnt in perpetual agony in a place with no doors and no time. If God cannot even grant his own creation liberty, what makes us think it comes "from God"? And if it does, then why hold the threat of hell over our heads when doing so is basically a shakedown by an intellectually weak or dishonest authoritarian?

This question is posed for those who actually believe there is a physical hell and that God will send us there should we CHOOSE not to believe in him, and that it's a perpetual punishment/pain. If there are any on here... lol

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I understand

But isn't that like me telling someone that you can either love me or not, your choice, but if you choose not to love me, I'm going to torture you forever? Doesn't that kind of not give you much of an option?

God will not be in hell torturing people

Your own decisions will torture you because you will be in a place for ever with all the people you claim to despise on this earth (all the evil people of this planet). As a person who loves liberty ("where the spirit of the lord is there is liberty".) Why would you not want to be there?


Why would I not want to be there? Who said I didn't? Read carefully, I'm just asking a question, and I never said god would be torturing people, I simply gave an example of my thoughts on the matter. By God not excepting us into Heaven for not loving him, is the same as not opening the door for someone who is being chased by a murderer, we are just as responsible for their death for not letting them into safety. Now, don't analyze that too much, like "but the murderer can still break in and kill both of you", just grab the gist of what I am saying.


Hell is more like a quarantine zone than anything else.

Consider how many times the Bible explains that an imperfect being cannot exist in the presence of the holiness that is God - thus the need for redemption-by-faith. God does not destroy the greatest of His creations, so they have to go somewhere. The "torment" in question appears to be the agony of being completely separate from God.

Jesus talks about Hell quite a bit, and as best I can tell (take this with a grain of salt; I'm no theologian, so check some commentaries as well) He seems to be talking about separation from God when He refers to torment, rather than active, intentional torture. My understanding is that fire was often used as a metaphor for guilt.

Also, Hell isn't so much an active "throw you into Hell" type thing as it is a "dude, you're on a train track in a ravine and the train's coming, take my hand and let me pull you out" situation. Some people believe they can pull themselves out by themselves, but the cliff is too steep for that; others are convinced that there is no train, though often they'll also try to climb out.

I'm Pastafarian

His holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not and would never be a brutal authoritarian, and it is heresy to say otherwise.

Oh yes and Spaghetti-O's are holy relics, in case anyone didn't know. Not that it is of any relevance here. Of course neither is this entire thread.

"Life is full of choices, but

"Life is full of choices, but you never get any!" - Linus


Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

A much more relevant question is...

What if human beings are sinful creatures who DESERVE to go to hell?

Proverbs 21:2
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

That's just a spin of the

That's just a spin of the same fake-offer.

What kind of God wants every individual to think and act the same as him? Does he see us as robots without any mind or soul of our own? Why make us, if it's just to regurgitate what he already believes? Of course all of this, if you support it, suggests you do not actually support liberty. In point of fact, you worship tyranny.

The more you examine the God who'll send you to hell, the more evil and twisted he seems. But of course, you can't question that. Why? Because then you'll go hell! Like any good tyrant, the threat is the ONLY reason you support the tyrant.


What if the reason God wants people to be more like him is because his nature is inherently good? What if the reason he wants people to believe certain things is because they are the truth? I think you are trying to make God a tyrant rather than merely observing a tyrant.

What if the reason the

What if the reason the Government wants more people to support them is because their nature is inherently good?

What if the reason the Government wants people to believe certain things is because they are the truth?

I think you are trying to make the Government a tyrant rather than merely observing a tyrant.


It seems like you're assuming that goodness and truth are not objective things with God. Government can be mistaken about what is good or true, God can not.

I could be wrong, but...

I thought this post was originally made by the poster with screen-name "fatlibertarian." I'm not trying to insult, that is just the screen-name.

If I'm right, did you lose weight, or just decide to change the name?

You people changing your screen-names gets me confused. I stay up at night sometimes trying to remember who was Fishy Culture before she was Fishy Culture. And no offense to you Bob, but fatlibertarian was much more memorable. On the other hand, "anonymity is the highest achievable state."

I just decided to use my real

I just decided to use my real name from now on. I really only had the name for YouTube which was originally fat libertarian, then I got shutdown by YouTube. So then I made TeaParty2012 and yeah we all know how well that TeaParty worked out? So killed that and made FatLibertarianinOkc and... so now I just said fuck it and I use my own name. There's not one other person on Earth with my name, either.

And as we get deeper into the political season I wanna do more timely and professional videos for our cause. I have a voice and I wanna be heard, even if I am annoying.

I'm atheists and i don't like

I'm atheists and i don't like being preached to, so i give that same respect to anyonewho my be religious. The only thing i will say about this subject is the state should not recognize it.

Beep beep boop beep... I am a Paulbot... prepare for liberty and prosperity!

You form your opinion of God... .

On May 12, 1797 while living in Paris, France Tom Paine wrote the following letter to a Christian friend who was trying to convert Paine to Christianity. Paine's response fits perfectly with my opinion on organized religion.

"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.

"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? For this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.

"The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.

"You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.

"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.

"Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?

"For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -

"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.

"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.

"The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

"That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.

"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.

"In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.

"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.

"You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.

"When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."

Live in Liberty
Tom Rankin

He seems to be confused

It would seem he observes everything (all) in the universe to describe God (all those things that are in perfect order and have their perfect place in perfect harmony) with one exception. MAN!!!!!!! Man is part of creation and he is by no means perfect and in any kind of order. Man will build submarines to carry bombs that can destroy the world in order to scare another man so he will comply to his commands. This man will know that he cannot use this weapon or he will destroy all his people as well. In moving these submarines around the oceans he uses a sonar that is so powerful it will kill most creatures in the sea. These animals are his food. He is willing to kill his own food supply in order to play out a bluff and if it isn't a bluff then he is a madman. WHAT ORDER IS HE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!! I think if he was alive today he would have a hard time worship the mighty gia. If he was to see man as part of the universe that is. He has a religion he worships the universe and the earth. He worships the science of them both he is a Pantheist. Hes a pagan. He seas his god in (all) well except man unless he thinks man is all good like the rest of creation. In that case we are back to crazy man.

The Bible Itself Answers Your Question

In Psalms 18:26 and elsewhere. It reads, "with the purified you show yourself pure;
and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous."

We cannot, with our four pounds of grey matter and six or seven decades of adult life, fully comprehend the nature of the being who holds all of time and space in the palm of His figurative hand. Rather, our conception of God is a tiny slice of His true nature as through the lens of our own eyes or reflected off the mirror of our own hearts.

In other words, Dr. Paul and I see God as a loving Father. You see God as a brutal authoritarian. He can and does show Himself both ways, but it which is seen says more about the heart of the observer than it does the nature of God.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

I'm confused about Psalms 18:26

If the bible was written by god then why doesn't he speak in first person?

Seems fishy that he would create the world in 7 days but refuse to pick up a pen and write a whole book himself.

Yeah well He tried His hand

at writing when He wrote the 10 commandments unto stone tablets. Contrary to your implication that this would be more listened to and respected, his own friend used them as a foil for his anger and smashed them right away. It seems God can't convince people who don't want to be convinced whether He reads His own Script or has His prophets read it. I guess when He testifies to the goodness of His own nature, He is bragging. When He has someone else who knows Him testify to the goodness of His own nature, its fishy!

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

there's no "TRY" if you are GOD.

I mean he is god for christ's sake, right??

Now you are just

playing word games. He did what He set out to do, and giving men free will, they had the reaction they had. My point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that according to the Bible God did do His own writing, and it seems to not matter that much whether He is saying something directly or He reveals something to a prophet who tells people. The variable is the heart of the listener, not the nuances of the delivery.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Let me make clear

that the phrasing indicates that the pure have the more accurate vision. That is to say, God "shows" Himself to them. That is, He reveals His true face. To the crooked He "makes Himself SEEM tortuous". This translation is the English Standard Version.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Wisdom of logic

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? - Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? - Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? - Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? - Then why call him God?


Come now friend,

can you not imagine some situation where He is able, but not presently willing, to stop ALL evil (not just the stuff you think is bad, but even the stuff you are doing, even the stuff you are doing that you kid yourself into believing is good but HE knows is really bad) besides malevolence?

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

My Logic

If God is (that which is) omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent; and

If wisdom and understanding come from knowledge, strength, and presence; and

If envy, anger, cowardice, fear, and pettiness come from ignorance, impotence, and absence; and

If Love becomes unconditional from wisdom, strength, and understanding, and is conditional or absent coming from ignorance, impotence, or in the presence of envy, anger, or fear; then

God is (unconditional) Love.

"Hell" sounds like it was invented by someone who was angry, impotent, and unloving. Probably a bureaucrat who thought force and threats of force were more effective than any kind of other power at his disposal, like communication. It wasn't invented by a wise being.

It wouldn't be the first time that a being lost confidence in their abilities to win people over, and resorted to threats, but that being could hardly be God.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

To me

The most viable answers have been found in the Near Death Experience


whose personal accounts relay that God/Light/etc is loving, while dignifying life with free will (and honoring impartial justice)

No Better Than NWO Political Leaders

NDEers and alien abductees alike report being subdued with an incredible feeling of love and peace. But the alien abductees are subsequently abused, and the NDEers are asked or forced to return to living a life of pain and suffering on this evil planet. So clearly these spiritual/superhuman entities are not benevolent beings. Rather they are no better than NWO political leaders.

It's ALL just politics!

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi


1) I did not equate NDErs to alien abductees

2) If NDErs are asked to return and complete their own supposedly pre-chosen mission (I do not personally know since I've not experienced it), I don't see that as being objectionable

3) 'forced to return to living a life of pain and suffering'

Philosophically that is a viable point

4) 'evil planet'

Presupposition: I see dark/light-good/bad in all things and therefore do not share your belief

5) 'clearly these spiritual/superhuman entities are not benevolent beings'

Disagreement: there are numerous accounts of benevolent actions by celestial-type beings

Billy Graham Reveals the Source of Bible Authority

In the November 13, 1995 issue of Christianity Today, page 31, we read, “Questions about the authority of Scripture had been troubling the young preacher (Billy Graham) for weeks. Knowing that the matter must be settled in his mind if he ever hoped to preach with authority and power, he wrestled with his doubts until he was able to pray; ‘Oh God, I cannot prove certain things. I cannot answer some of the questions my friends are asking. [Yet, here and now I am ready to accept the Bible] by faith as the Word of God.’”
Perhaps some of Graham’s doubts regarding the Bible were: the talking donkey at Numbers 22:28; God threatening people by saying, “Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces” at Malachi 2:3; God commanding the Hebrews/Jews to kill people by stoning for working on the Sabbath as is found at Numbers 15:32-36; that God would order someone to “eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight” as Ezekiel 4:12 claims; that Jesus would condemn the Jews for NOT killing their disobedient children as Matthew 15:4-6 claims. Billy Graham must also have had very serious doubts about salvation through Jesus since the Bible is not even clear about this center piece of Christianity. None of the above material from the Bible can ever be accepted by God-given reason. Plus there are hundreds, if not thousands, of additional Biblical claims that are contrary to our God-given reason which Graham would not be able to align with his gift from God of reason.

The article goes on to say, “That simple prayer transformed Graham’s ministry – and convinced him, once for all, of the Bible’s absolute authority. Since that special moment at Forest Home, no conviction has marked his ministry more deeply. Across the years, the Bible has remained the foundation for his preaching and the ultimate standard by which he judges both his relationships and the conduct of his evangelical work.” The Bible remained Graham’s “foundation for his preaching and the ultimate standard” because he turned his back on God’s gift to him, and to all of us, of reason in order to accept the unreasonable ungodly nonsense in the Bible.
Mr. Graham, by his simple prayer and admission, has given Deists and all people who value their God-given reason much more than books written by men and merely masquerading as “revealed” religion, an unbeatable weapon. He admits there is no logical reason that is satisfying to our God-given common sense and reason to believe the Bible is the inspired word of God! And he is the most highly praised influential Protestant Christian leader in the world! Revealed religionists are therefore forced to replace their God-given reason with faith (which is a human invention designed to dull the mind), as Mr. Graham has done, in order to believe the Bible was written with the authority of God. We can add his prayer to our collection of arrows designed to penetrate through to the core of superstition.
Many people think there is something miraculous to Graham’s rise to prominence in the Christian evangelical world. In reality there is nothing God related to it. Instead of God, it is based on advertising. And not just any advertising, but advertising promoted by one of the most powerful men of the 20th century – Bernard Baruch.

Bernard Baruch was a very powerful and wealthy Jewish financier. He saw some of Graham’s sermons in a South Carolina newspaper and was impressed. What may have impressed him was Graham breaking away from the standard Christian doctrine of the time that the Jews where “Christ-killers,” and children of Satan. For example, John 8:44 has Jesus telling the Jews, “Ye are of your father the devil, . . .” John 5:16-18 says the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to kill him. And at John 7:13 we read, “Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.” Graham stayed away from these Bible teachings and that must have been very pleasing to the Jewish financier, Baruch.

I officially declare...

this forum topic to be retarded.

Just sayin... :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~