The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
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.

Why is it that you atheists/agnostics

just ALWAYS have to assume God is an Evangelical Christian!? Your ignorance of spirituality is quite astonishing and sad.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous

Phxarcher87's picture

I thought the athiest

Was just as moral and kind as anyone else. You are not helping that argument with your rude communication skills. Were you raised by a non loving mother?

James Madison


Jesus: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead." Luke 16:31

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

I will answer your question, but...

first answer mine. Why do you believe Ron Paul's words? What makes his testimony trustworthy? Where does his authority come from?

Because the make sense.They

Because they make sense.

They fall in line with non-agression principals based on natural law and individualism.

Because Ron is intellectually honest and doesn't misrepresent what he's preaching as something its not. He doesn't call hate, love, or evil, good. Everyword he speaks stands up to the test of reason and logic.

He doesn't use lies, gross rationalizations, or misinformation to sell the unsellable. He doesn't use threats of force or promises of unrealistic reward to attract sheep to bahhh for him. He offers only a philosophy which we either agree with, or do not, with our voluntary, non-coersed consent.

His authority comes from his ability to produce a message that I can endorse and agree with. Much like anything in capitalism, he is selling something I am buying.

Where his authority does NOT come from, is a threat to shoot me in the head if I don't like his philosophy. I can't say that much for the flying spagetti monster.

How can an omniscient God and

How can an omniscient God and free will coexist?

I don't see a problem

GOD knows what you will choose - He didn't make a choice for you.

If GOD doesn't make the choice for the individual but still knows what they will choose (because He is just that smart) then the individual still has total free will.

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

and yet he lets you walk into

and yet he lets you walk into hell, knowing well in advance you're going to fail. Nice.

Ha. Good luck getting an

Ha. Good luck getting an answer to that one. Here's another:

Can god create a rock so darned heavy, that he is unable to lift it?

GoodSamaritan's picture

This type of ridiculous inquiry

is called the logical fallacy of the pseudo-question.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father


for the help. I need help from time to time : )

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

@Magwan This is an illogical statement

Can GOD create a round square?

Can GOD create a married bachelor?

These things are illogical and do not exist, so it is pointless to bring them up.

I forget the specific term for this (I'm no learned philosopher - I just think a lot) but there is one and it's a common mistaken to try and use this 'argument.'

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

Too funny.Round squares can't

Too funny.

Round squares can't exist. Heavy rocks can. Given an infinite amount of time and space, only things that are possible will occur, and even the most vastly powerful beings in existance can only do what is possible. Omnipotency is something differant. It means without limitations.

Married bachelors only exist in the opinion of zealots when gay people get married.

So because heavy rocks are real, and one's weight capacity is real... what exactly are you saying? That God can't make heavy rocks... or that God has a finite number of pounds he can lift? There is only one possibility here. (Hint, its none-of-the-above)

The reason why this question makes faith-drenched minds run and hide is because is is absolute 100% logical proof that there is no such thing as omnipotency. Omnipotency is impossible, because in order for it to exist, it would require direct contradictions to exist at the same time... like round squares. Nothing can do "anything" because the existance of some things cancel out the possibility of the existance of other things. i.e. Since circles & squares both exist and are defined and given identity by their retrospective shapes, we know that round squares cannot exist with certainty. For such things to exist would require an existance without physical laws. God himself claims he has brought order, or laws into existance... so since these exist, he has made himself into a logical falicy.

In order to remain "faith-minded" without a direct confrontation between faith and reason, you have to dodge this question with silly answers that don't address the question, or else make absurd and incorrect assertions about the question or questioner, such as "Thats a logical falicy!" No.... its not. Its called a trick question. Meaning that the answer is to be derived from outside the scope of the inquary.

Omnipotency and round-squares are logical falicies, because they cannot exist in a logical universe. A question asking if a limitless being can do two actions that rule each other out "is" possible. Its no differant than asking how much larger does the government need to grow in order to end corruption, or how much sugar one needs to put in coffee before its not sweet any longer.

Your only viable escape from this question "if" you decide to confront it head on, rather than dodge it, is to believe that god can do impossible things... such as make a rock too big to lift AND lift it at the same time. You may as well toss whatever scrap remains of your human reason when you decide to believe in impossible things, because the battle is lost, and you are mentally broken. Congradulations, you're now a life-long chrisitian completely immune to logic and reason. Facts will bounce off you like .22 shells off a sherman tank.

If you commit to this question with reason, you'll soon know what sort of person you are. Some human minds simply cannot abandon reason once that collision between faith and reason occurs, and their faith is doomed the moment they decide to truly commit to this. This question, and those like it are your key to mental liberty. Most are not, or may never be ready for that confrontation and will only dodge. The rest will commit and crush their reason forever, becoming zealots.

Of course the easier answer would be... he's an ego maniac that wants his serfs to think he's limitless. However he mucked that up when he gave some of us a working brain. But relax... im sure God wants to be surrounded in heaven only with people who cannot grasp logic, never question authority and will condone any evil (torture, genocide) so long as someone reeeeeeally powerful is doing it.

We mustn't believe in impossible things. Even a little girl named Alice understood this.

BMWJIM's picture

In Supposition I submit that the only IDEA you

have of GOD is what you have been taught about him, from MAN and the CHURCH. Maybe there is another answer!

Quit looking to man's version of GOD. Quit looking to the written version (BY MAN) for answers!

Take a few minutes each morning and look within yourself and find GOD! He is there. YOu just have to seek and you will find him. Then tell the rest on this plane to "F" off!.

Then you will truly understand.

In the mean time head towards the Plateau and the NORTH.


1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

BMWJIM's picture

Double post


1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

Just keep in mind

It's a fallacy to assume God is like this simply because all the evangelicals say so.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous

Far from it...

God is the greatest libertarian of all. Ron Paul maybe the greatest man on earth, but Almighty God is greater than him. So if you love Ron Paul, you will love our God much much more. For they promote the same things: justice, mercy, good will towards men. Authoritarians kill, steal, and destroy. They sound more like that other guy. Fear not, God is with us.

Ron Paul says: Id appreciate

Ron Paul says: Id appreciate your vote and will work hard to earn your support.

God says: Worship me or burn forever in my torture chamber.

Ron Paul says: Every human has the right to life, liberty and property. These things may not be violated without due process of law.

God says: You have no rights because I am supreme master. Obey me or burn forever in my torture chamber.

Ron Paul says: Punish the individual for their crimes, don't blame innocent law abiding citizens by restricting their rights.

God says: Adam and Eve ate the apple I told them not to. Even though I knew they'd eat it a trillion years before I even made them, I still decided to give it to them so that I could watch them fail. Now I will punish every other human ever born for their crime.

Ron Paul says: I believe in voluntary choice, and that free people have the right to choose for themselves, even things that are not good for them.

God says: You are free to choose to worship me. If you do not, you will be burned in my torture chamber for all eternity.

Ron Paul says: People have to take responsability for their own actions.

God says: Im not burning you... you're burning yourself by not worshipping me. Anyway, its the devil doing the burning, not me... I just created him and allow him to do what he does even though I could stop it in a nano-second. Not my fault.

Conclusion: Ron Paul is far superior to your cosmic king. Id worship the good Dr. over your Orwelleon fantasy any day of the week. In fact, now that we are in the age of Aquarius, I think its time that Jesus pass the messiah stick to a new leader who can guide us through the libertarian awakening. Out with the old, in with the new. All praise Ron Paul. The new messiah. At least he exists.

Point to chapter and verse where

God says: Worship me or burn forever in my torture chamber.

If you are going to comment, at least comment with truthful commentary.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I couldn't give a shit what

I couldn't give a shit what it says in the bible. Im speaking to christians who believe in hell. If you're not one of them, im not talking to you, so you needn't respond to my arguments.

Many christians believe that a torturous hell exists, and that if you don't submit to god, thats where you go. If thats not you... keep moving.

I find the concept of hell to be ridiculous and completly contradictory to the feasability of a "loving" or "good" god.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Apparently you care enough

about what's in the Bible or you wouldn't have bothered to lie about it.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Oh boy...

Christians derive their beliefs from the Bible.

To believe in something else that isn't the Bible is to be something else that is not a Christian.

If you do not care what the Bible says, how can you ever hope to have a conversation about GOD and these kinds of issues that isn't equivalent to a couple of children yelling about nonsense?

GOD is loving, but GOD is also just. People go to Hell as a punishment for their crimes - GOD offers ALL people a pardon from those crimes (that's the love part), a chance to be innocent, but when people refuse that offer they are guilty and they must pay the price (justice).

It isn't about 'love' or 'hate' at that point, it's about 'justice' which is something I think we all can agree is a desirable thing.

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

I concur

The god of the Christian bible is a real mean-spirited SOB for sure. I want no part of that. I would rather spend eternity swimming in a burning lake of fire than to submit to all the childish BS.

Funny, Ron Paul is a deeply religious man.

I guess you think he's also stupid? Or since you like Ayn Rand's collectivist quote so much, you agree with it and think Ron Paul has taken "shortcuts" or is deluded?

It's entirely impossible, according to you, that Ron Paul might know something you don't, right?

Ron Paul's personally belief

Ron Paul's personally belief system is not my business. I could care less what god he pays homage to, or if he does at all.

I admire Ron Paul for his message of liberty and individualism which runs antithetical to a "hell" based christian religeon which is a collectivist system of force and coersion. I have strong doubts he believes in hell at all, but if he does... that's his business as long as he keeps preaching natural law and free markets when it comse to government.

A man can conduct his life however he chooses so long as he doesn't use it to infringe on other's rights.

FBI, you STILL haven't looked up collectivism in the dictionary? By the Flying Spagetti Monster... you have an uncanny ability to stubbornly remain misinformed.

In answer, and as I said before, Im sure there are tons of brilliant religeous people, including Ron Paul. I still view faith-based thinking as a handicap and believe that these folks would have been smarter without their dogma, but that doesn't mean they can't be brilliant dispite. Ron Paul is a great example.

A Faulty Sweeping Generalization IS a collectivist statement.

It incorrectly groups everyone being addressed together INCORRECTLY and ILLOGICALLY.

You are constantly guilty of this all the time. Should I get the link to your comment where you call Christians "sick fear mongers who hate their children." ?

I'm sorry, but you really need to get a grip. You LITERALLY do not know even what you are saying. There's some disconnect between your mouth (fingers) and your brain or something. That or you are a MASSIVE hypocrite or just a government agent in here looking to stir trouble.

No FBI, that would be called

No FBI, that would be called a "mistake" were the generalized statement untrue. Its not however.

To kick this off... please go get that link you are threatening me with. Because maybe then, you'll understand how often you say things which are not true. That was a misquote you just pointed at me... but like most things ive already told you and provided evidence for, the facts won't deture you in the slightest.

I said that christians who believe in hell (despite or in support of what the bible claims) are "sick, fear-filled people who believe their children are EVIL." Among a few other things... including the one you won't bring up... which was "who lie and pretend to love their ficticious cosmic king more than they love their own families."

"Fear-filled." True. They fear hell. Most of them even refer to themselves as "God Fearing" christians. Where's the innacuracy here?

"Believe their children are evil." True. All christians outside of the arians who were declaired heritics back and forth up to the 6th century believe that mankind is by his nature, evil. Born evil, and must be saved... therfore, YOU, if you follow christian orthodoxy believe your children are evil. I made absolutly 0 claim that you hated your children. You invented that as a strawman in order to lambast my statement which I did not make. (notice how I correctly use strawman here... take notes) Where is the innacuracy here?

Ill take this a step further. If you do "not" believe your children are born evil, than why do they need to be saved in order to get into heaven? If they are good, and still end up in hell for not believing in god... then what does that say about your god? Or is it the "believing in god" that defines wether someone is good or evil? Im pretty sure, children do not believe in god, as they have no concept of such things until they are capable of language and thus suitable for brainwashing. Shouldn't good people go to heaven? Or is it that children of christians are born good, and only everyone else's children, like mine, are born evil?

"Who lie and say they love their god more than their families." True? Maybe... this one can go either way. Ask yourself. Whom do you love more, your children or your God? Try something you haven't done before; try being honest with yourself.

You are still incorrect about the definition of "collectivist."

And... a government agent? Really? FBI, your government "wants" you to be believe in bullshit. Its how they are able to exist. I guess this is where your name comes from. I wonder how many FBI agents like me you've exposed? (Does this make you collectivist in fantasy land where words mean strange things?)

None of this suggests Ron

None of this suggests Ron Paul believes in an actual hell. After all, it's the coercion part that we find so repugnant.

There's no coercion part.

That was fabricated by you. Even in your argumentation construct you failed to logically assert that there is a coercion "part".

only to idiots who are

only to idiots who are incapable of looking up coersion in a dictionary. You can't succeed in logically asserting anything to those who are immune to logic.