I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[LNC]

1. First question that comes to mind about your free agency: is there sin in heaven? If there is no sin in heaven why not?

 

If there is no sin in heaven then:

a. God is content to live with robots, or

b. God can make free will individuals who live without sin therefore what is the problem with doing the same here?

 

If there is sin in heaven what the fuck is the problem with sin here?

 

2. Do you have kids? When they disobey you do you banish them from your presence and dip them in fire? Should we call social services?

 

Someone should call social services on God. There should be a number on the back of God's baby carriage underneath the sign, How's my parenting? Pretty horseshit I'd say.

 

No, there is no sin in heaven. I am actually not sure of all the details of how sin is overcome in heaven; however, there are a few possibilities:

 

1. God's presence is so overwhelming as to overcome any thought of sin. Sin is ultimately rebellion against God, and the clear presence of God will make that rebellion undesirable.

2. Just as with the angels, our time of sin has been done away with after we leave this life. We have trusted in God in this life and we see him with unveiled eyes in the next.

3. I am sure that there are other possibilities that don't come to mind off hand, but the Bible makes it clear that there will be no more sorrow and no more sin.

 

The problem with sin here is that it is rebellion against a God who deserves our worship.

 

I do have kids. I do punish my kids when they disobey; however, the punishment always (or usually) is in proportion to the disobedience. My kids don't deserve eternal punishment as they have only disobeyed a finite individual (either me or their mother). When we rebel against God, we are rebelling against an infinite being, which requires an eternal punishment. However, that is why he sent his son, who was the only one qualified to pay that penalty. By trusting in him, our debt can be covered. The choice is ours as to whether we choose to pay our own debt, or entrust it to Jesus. God cannot be faulted for providing the means of having our deserved debt covered by his own son. It is we who, in rejecting that gracious offer, are to be faulted.

[Astreja]

I do have kids. I do punish my kids when they disobey; however, the punishment always (or usually) is in proportion to the disobedience. My kids don't deserve eternal punishment as they have only disobeyed a finite individual (either me or their mother). When we rebel against God, we are rebelling against an infinite being, which requires an eternal punishment.

Okay, that makes no sense at all. The status of the aggrieved party is more important than the nature of the crime???

 

To Me, this sounds very much like "Steal a loaf of bread from a poor man, spend a month in jail. Steal an identical loaf of bread from Sir Hissyfit, you hang at dawn."

 

This is not justice. This is power and privilege gone totally mad.

[nightflight]

1. God's presence is so overwhelming as to overcome any thought of sin. Sin is ultimately rebellion against God, and the clear presence of God will make that rebellion undesirable.

 

Then why didn't your god make his presence as such from the beginning?

 

The problem with sin here is that it is rebellion against a God who deserves our worship.

 

Why does he deserve our worship? His holy book is filled with the most sickening violence and terrorism. It would be like saying Stalin deserves our worship.

 

I do have kids. I do punish my kids when they disobey; however, the punishment always (or usually) is in proportion to the disobedience. My kids don't deserve eternal punishment as they have only disobeyed a finite individual (either me or their mother). When we rebel against God, we are rebelling against an infinite being, which requires an eternal punishment.

 

Yet we are finite beings, born, as Christianity teaches us, with a sin-nature. It is our nature to "sin". Your god punishes people for acting according to their natures. And you call this being just?????

 

By trusting in him, our debt can be covered. The choice is ours as to whether we choose to pay our own debt, or entrust it to Jesus. God cannot be faulted for providing the means of having our deserved debt covered by his own son. It is we who, in rejecting that gracious offer, are to be faulted.

 

So the debt is paid but its not really paid until I believe its paid. And yet we are called upon to believe its paid. Sheesh. Further, this whole "choice" bit is unbiblical. It says plainly in Romans 9:16 that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. So the bit about free-will is moot.

 

edit: Just curious LNC; if your kids wind up in hell will you praise god for his justice? I mean, what if John Gerstner is right when he says, "Why, then, do almost all seem to oppose frightening children with hell? The answer is obvious: they wrongly fancy that children are not in danger of hell. Can you imagine that a mother who would give her own life to save her child’s wouldn’t do everything to save her child from hell if she knew there was any danger?

 

There are three imagined reasons for supposing that children are in no danger of hell. Some think children are innocent of sin and guilt. Some admit that they are not innocent, but are saved from sin by being born again in infant baptism. Some fancy that though little sinners, not regenerated in baptism, children are, nonetheless, safe in the covenant of grace.

 

Infants are not innocent, but born in guilt and sin. Paul says we were all born dead in trespasses and sins, Eph.2:1. In Adam, in whom children are born, all died, Rom. 5:12. Only “in Christ (in whom all need to be reborn), are all made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22) So until children are born again, they are in imminent peril of eternal damnation and should be made aware of it as soon as possible."

 

You okay with that? You okay with the thought of your offspring spending forever saying AAAAAAAIIIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

[Kuroikaze]

I do have kids. I do punish my kids when they disobey; however, the punishment always (or usually) is in proportion to the disobedience. My kids don't deserve eternal punishment as they have only disobeyed a finite individual (either me or their mother). When we rebel against God, we are rebelling against an infinite being, which requires an eternal punishment.

Okay, that makes no sense at all. The status of the aggrieved party is more important than the nature of the crime???

 

To Me, this sounds very much like "Steal a loaf of bread from a poor man, spend a month in jail. Steal an identical loaf of bread from Sir Hissyfit, you hang at dawn."

 

This is not justice. This is power and privilege gone totally mad.

 

Actually the notion that the type of punishment a crime deserves is based upon the status of the aggrieved is one that would make total sense to the mind of someone raised in a feudal style government.

 

Which I guess explains why this sort of thinking made so much sense at the time the bible was written. How it still makes sense to LNC, who was supposedly raised in a democracy, I haven't a clue.

[Kuroikaze]

1. God's presence is so overwhelming as to overcome any thought of sin. Sin is ultimately rebellion against God, and the clear presence of God will make that rebellion undesirable.

 

 

Uh....then how to you explain Satan?

[Ouroboros]

No, there is no sin in heaven.

So where was Satan when he revolted? Where were the angels that fell with him? Where did they come from?

 

So you're basically saying: No angels in Heaven. or Satan didn't sin against God.

 

Btw, did Satan have Free Will?

 

I am actually not sure of all the details of how sin is overcome in heaven; however, there are a few possibilities:

 

1. God's presence is so overwhelming as to overcome any thought of sin. Sin is ultimately rebellion against God, and the clear presence of God will make that rebellion undesirable.

Then how come sin came to be at all to begin with? How did Satan talk to God in the Book of Job?

 

2. Just as with the angels, our time of sin has been done away with after we leave this life. We have trusted in God in this life and we see him with unveiled eyes in the next.

Just as the angels... what? The angels died? Jesus died for the angels? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

3. I am sure that there are other possibilities that don't come to mind off hand, but the Bible makes it clear that there will be no more sorrow and no more sin.

Does it really? Book and verse please, as my pastor used to say.

 

The problem with sin here is that it is rebellion against a God who deserves our worship.

See above. Satan rebelled against God. Satan was present with God when he rebelled, and when he challenged God about Job.

 

I do have kids. I do punish my kids when they disobey; however, the punishment always (or usually) is in proportion to the disobedience. My kids don't deserve eternal punishment as they have only disobeyed a finite individual (either me or their mother). When we rebel against God, we are rebelling against an infinite being, which requires an eternal punishment. However, that is why he sent his son, who was the only one qualified to pay that penalty. By trusting in him, our debt can be covered. The choice is ours as to whether we choose to pay our own debt, or entrust it to Jesus. God cannot be faulted for providing the means of having our deserved debt covered by his own son. It is we who, in rejecting that gracious offer, are to be faulted.

So an infinite being have infinite anger, but not infinite love or compassion? Doesn't God understand how difficult it is to know anything for sure here? Doesn't God know that "absolute" knowledge is impossible here? Even if God is "absolute" we are not. Even if God is infinite, we are not! (As you said) So he makes us the offer of vague requirements, with infinite punishments, because he ... love us??? It's sick, and what is really, really sick, is that you can't see it.

[Vigile]

I do have kids. I do punish my kids when they disobey; however, the punishment always (or usually) is in proportion to the disobedience. My kids don't deserve eternal punishment as they have only disobeyed a finite individual (either me or their mother). When we rebel against God, we are rebelling against an infinite being, which requires an eternal punishment. However, that is why he sent his son, who was the only one qualified to pay that penalty. By trusting in him, our debt can be covered. The choice is ours as to whether we choose to pay our own debt, or entrust it to Jesus. God cannot be faulted for providing the means of having our deserved debt covered by his own son. It is we who, in rejecting that gracious offer, are to be faulted.

 

I thought you were smarter than the average apologist. Clearly I was mistaken.

 

South Park's LDS episode comes to mind here "Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb..."

[chefranden]

No, there is no sin in heaven. I am actually not sure of all the details of how sin is overcome in heaven; however, there are a few possibilities:

 

1. God's presence is so overwhelming as to overcome any thought of sin. Sin is ultimately rebellion against God, and the clear presence of God will make that rebellion undesirable.

2. Just as with the angels, our time of sin has been done away with after we leave this life. We have trusted in God in this life and we see him with unveiled eyes in the next.

3. I am sure that there are other possibilities that don't come to mind off hand, but the Bible makes it clear that there will be no more sorrow and no more sin.

 

The problem with sin here is that it is rebellion against a God who deserves our worship.

 

1. Then if God doesn't want sin here, why doesn't he overwhelm any thought of sin here? Is God too small? Is it he can only overwhelm heaven? He must have bitten of more than he could chew when he made the universe? He's way the hell out there and the radiance of his presence that reaches Earth is about that of the big bang's residual radiation? Well anyway if this is true a soul doesn't have free will in heaven, so God is content to have robot creatures and there is no reason not to have robot creatures here.

 

2. What is the purpose of having a "veiled" site of God in this life? What is the purpose of having a time of sin? If God wanted us to have a time of sin, then why is he pissed that we have a time of sin? If unveiled sight is the cure to sin, and if God doesn't want there to be sin, why isn't sight unveiled? We have the untold misery of billions of souls going on here and God could cure it simply by becoming visible. Yet he doesn't do it. If this is true then your God, if real, is an asshole.

 

Maybe this is hell? Or purgatory?

 

3. Therefore as I said that either God can make free will without sin, or God is content with Robots. In either case your free will argument is just so much bullshit. In addition God is responsible for sin and it's resultant misery both here and then in hell. By his own words (mt 25:36-41) God stands condemned. For many are hungry whom he doesn't feed, and many are thirsty to whom he gives no drink.

 

 

 

1. I do have kids. I do punish my kids when they disobey; however, the punishment always (or usually) is in proportion to the disobedience. My kids don't deserve eternal punishment as they have only disobeyed a finite individual (either me or their mother). 2 When we rebel against God, we are rebelling against an infinite being, which requires an eternal punishment. 3. However, that is why he sent his son, who was the only one qualified to pay that penalty. By trusting in him, our debt can be covered. 4. The choice is ours as to whether we choose to pay our own debt, or entrust it to Jesus. God cannot be faulted for providing the means of having our deserved debt covered by his own son. It is we who, in rejecting that gracious offer, are to be faulted.

 

1. Oh but they do deserve eternal punishment, or else they wouldn't need a savior would they? The cute little tykes are filthy rags in the presence of God, piles of shit on God's living room carpet so to speak. They are so depraved that only if they are covered in blood can Yahweh stand to have them around.

 

2. Why does it require eternal punishment?*

 

3. But he didn't pay the penalty, which is as you have said eternal punishment. Jesus was only in hell for 36 hours give or take. You just are not making sense here. You are not asking the obvious questions. You are only regurgitating doctrinal statements that are meaningless when examined.

 

4. Sorry but I don't have this choice. I can't believe this nonsense for the same reasons you can't believe in Zeus. I can't fool myself anymore at least in this department. You can still fool yourself. I can tell this by the way you deliver the scripted message in the usual robotic fashion. Ironic isn't it?

 

*It occurs to me that you punish your kids to help them learn via negative inducements. God however punishes for revenge. Therefore your metaphor of God as father tells us nothing. At best God is judge.

 

You are not a child of God because you will never grow up to be a god. At best you can hope to have a good enough voice to qualify for heavens boy's choir.

 

13And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

 

14And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15

Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple:

and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. 16They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. 17For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

 

So you are destined to be the slave of God. What is a slave besides a rather defective robot?

[LNC]

If I only had a nickle for every time I said this and a dime for every time it has appeared on this board...

 

But you agree with me then. God intended to have a fallen creation, or he is so incompetent of a creator that he couldn't get it right in a million tries.

 

He wanted to have the drama. He wanted millions to burn in hell so that he could demonstrate love. He wanted thousands of child sex slaves to rot without hope of rescue either physically or "spiritually"? He wanted thousands of child soldiers with about the same hope? He wanted all of the misery just so he could love you? And you want me to believe that such a Sky Psycho loves me? Well maybe it does, but I couldn't love it. It is too much like being loved by Saddam Hussein.

 

Maybe it is posted so often because it is true. Did God know that his creation would fall, sure, does that mean that he intended for them to fall, no, that doesn't necessarily follow. If he created creatures with free agency, it would follow that they would have had equal possibility to choose to obey. You make a mistake when you draw the conclusion that God is incompetent. That is to misunderstand the freedom of the creature. If God had wanted to create creatures without the ability to fall, he could have done that; however, those creatures would not have been free to choose. God valued giving people freedom more than he valued creating people who would have no choice but to obey.

 

God has not forced one person to rebel against him, including you. If anyone has gone to, or is currently destined for hell, it is because they have valued their rebellion more than they value a relationship with their creator. Hell is obviously no threat to them during their lifetimes, so why do you have a problem with it in your mind? If you really had a problem with people going to hell, don't you think you would do something about your own situation before worrying about others? Who is to say that they wouldn't make the same choice you are now if given another chance? I will believe that you are really troubled about this when you begin to look at yourself and where you stand in relationship to God's offer of redemption. However, if you choose to remain in your rebellion, why should I believe that any of these others for whom you feel angst would not do the same with the offer you have been given?

 

Oh I see, then God didn't make the snake? God didn't know what the snake would do? Sorry if God is the creator then he is responsible for the snake, and the snakes actions. If God is the creator than he is responsible for making the desire to be gods. By the way if Adam and Eve were God's children rather than his claymations, why shouldn't they want to be gods? Kittens grow up to be cats. Children grow up to be people. Children of a god should grow up to be gods. If this isn't the case then Adam and Eve were not children of God.

 

If God is the father than he is responsible for the kids behavior. He is also responsible for the punishment. Do you kill your children when they disobey you? If you did what would they learn? Do you leave loaded handguns laying around the house and say hey don't fool with these or you will die! You should go to jail if you do. I'm sorry but this pathetic explanation just doesn't cut the mustard.

 

The serpent had freedom originally just like all other free creatures. God didn't create the serpent to tempt, the serpent chose to become a tempter. Again, are you responsible for the sins of your children, or are they responsible for them. I mean, they are your offspring, so shouldn't you be blamed when they mess up? That logic doesn't work for children and parents, and it certainly doesn't carry with God and his creation. You are mistaking free creatures for little automatons.

 

When my children are adults I am no longer responsible for their behavior. The fact that God is responsible for punishing his creation doesn't equate to being responsible for the actions of his creation. However, that being said, he still did send Jesus to die to pay the penalty for his rebellious creation, not out of obligation, but out of love and mercy, to be gracious to us. You are using equivocal language when saying that Adam and Eve were children of God, not univocal language. They weren't little gods, they were God's creation and adopted children, but not of the same kind. My children are adopted, but they don't share my or my wife's DNA, yet they are still my children.

 

1. How can you be morally perfect and yet make the wrong moral choice? What kind of nonsense is that? Are you saying that God can sin? If one sins then it is obvious that one is not morally perfect. Didn't Jesus say, "by their fruits you shall know them"? Besides Adam and Eve did not know good from evil -- that is what they ate the fruit to find out. Shit they were gamboling about naked and didn't even notice. Going about naked is sinful, but they didn't know it. Not till they ate from the tree did they go, "oops, guess we'd better get dressed before dad comes home".

 

2. Sorry but it is. If you have a gun and have loaded the gun and then put the gun where the child can play with it. If you know the child will play with it you have fore ordained the child's death even if you did not intend the child's death. God made the gun. God loaded the gun. God knew the kids would play with it. God is one fucked up dad.

 

3. Yes you are guilty at least guilty of failure to teach your children right from wrong. That is unless you acknowledge that humans were designed to learn by mistake. Designed by whom according to your world view? So here we have a being designed to learn by mistake, being condemned to death along with myriads of decedents for making a mistake.

 

Another reason you are not at fault for the children's disobedience is that you didn't make them. Oh sure you made the beast with two backs from time to time, but you did not make them. God made them, and God made them flawed i.e. mistake making critters. And then is pissed off because they make mistakes. Again the one who designs behaviors is the one responsible for behaviors that happen.

 

Your parenting metaphor is flawed for 2 reasons: a. Parents are not creators. b. Creators are not parents. If God exists, God is not your parent. God is your Creator therefore his responsibility for your workings is absolute. If he wanted you to have free will and therefore be a sinner, fine. The potter can shape the pot as he likes. What does not follow logically or morally is that the potter should punish the pot for being the shape he intended to make it. The Creator is responsible for the created in all it's aspects, because without the creator none of the aspects can be. Spin all you want an still you won't shake God loose from his own doom.

 

The government is not the Creator either. It just tries to clean up after the mess the Creator made without the Creator's resources.

 

Morally perfect means morally sinless, not incapable of sinning. Again, they had freedom to choose. Maybe perfect didn't convey the right idea, maybe morally uncorrupted would be better.

 

2. Then, I assume that you believe that people don't have freedom to choose. Or, do you believe that Adam and Eve were too ignorant to understand what "do not" meant. Adam and Eve were not children, they were described as adults. So, which is it?

 

3. If that is the case, then why aren't children of adults (for that is the analogy) arrested whenever a person breaks the law? The law assumes that when people reach adulthood that they become responsible for their own actions, this is the case even before adulthood in the U.S. I don't think your description of learn by mistake carries. Adam and Eve were instructed prior to their choosing to disobey. They didn't need to disobey to learn a lesson, they could have simply trusted that what God said would come true; i.e., if they disobeyed, they would die.

 

Have you ever heard the term procreate? It means to beget and contains the word create.. If one brings children into the world, those children didn't exist until they were conceived of in the womb, therefore, the choice to bring children into the world is done knowing that they would break rules, probably break laws, and even hurt other people. Yet, people still bring children into the world. As for your explanation of God being absolutely responsible, you still fail to account for the freedom that God has granted us.

 

By your logic, parents should not discipline their children either. They know that their children are going to have free will and therefore, will screw up, yet they still bore them into the world. So, why should a parent punish their child when it was they who brought them into the world and exposed them to the temptations that led to their moral failures. Maybe God has a higher reason to giving us freedom to choose than he does in not creating us at all or creating us to be automatons. Your logic doesn't stand up in this case.

[Vigile]

Did God know that his creation would fall, sure, does that mean that he intended for them to fall, no, that doesn't necessarily follow.

 

Listen, if god created people whom he knew would suffer for an eternity before he created them then god is more immoral than Stalin regardless of free will, whatever that means.

 

Just as a very minor analogy, if you could know that the baby who would be conceived if you had sex tonight would be born with a debilitating and painful disability, the type of which there could be zero quality of life the bulk of humanity would judge you a monster if you chose to go ahead and not wear a condom. Free will is a concept that doesn't follow here.

[Ouroboros]

LNC,

 

A serial killer is on death-row, and 5 minutes before he gets the needle, he regrets all the murders, ask God for forgiveness, and even ask for Jesus to save him. He is executed. Where did he go? Hell or Heaven? And what is the justification for why he went there? Consider that he was truly honest about his regrets and sincerely prayed to God for forgiveness, and truly wanted Jesus to come into his life.

 

At the same time, the father to one of the victims dies of heart attack, caused by the sorrow and the intense years where the killer kept on appealing. The father was devastated, and had lost all faith in a good God, and lost faith in God completely. He died as an unbeliever. Where did he go? Heaven or Hell? And what is the justification for why he went there.

 

If you can't answer this, I would really seriously doubt you know your own "absolute" moral or truth. If ethics and morals are absolutes, you shouldn't have any problem to answer this, and answer it in such a way that it is morally justified (since morality isn't relative, but absolute). And you should realize that this is not a mere thought experiment, but are a very plausible scenario.

 

So how about it, what is the answer?

[chefranden]

... 1. Did God know that his creation would fall, sure, does that mean that he intended for them to fall, no, that doesn't necessarily follow.

 

2. If he created creatures with free agency, it would follow that they would have had equal possibility to choose to obey.

 

3. You make a mistake when you draw the conclusion that God is incompetent. That is to misunderstand the freedom of the creature. If God had wanted to create creatures without the ability to fall, he could have done that; however, those creatures would not have been free to choose.

 

4. God valued giving people freedom more than he valued creating people who would have no choice but to obey.

 

1. Then he intended it. If you set off a bomb in your back yard knowing that it will harm the neighbors, you are responsible even if your desire was just to remove that nasty stump. But it is worse if you are the Creator. If the created does what it was created to do then the Creator intends for that to happen. You can say that does not follow until the stars cease to shine, but nevertheless it does follow, and follows necessarily.

 

Hebrews2.10In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God,

for whom and through whom everything exists,

should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.

 

If sin exists then it is for God and its agency of existence is God. So it seems that God wanted sin. Even if God didn't want sin, he intended to make it because he made it. It is necessary because God supposedly can't oops. Either God intended it or it couldn't happen.

 

2. No it wouldn't follow. God is creator. Everything that is created is created by God. The choices are created by God. The fact that some (all?) will choose poorly is also created by God. Either God is not the creator of everything or God is incompetent, or God intended sin.

 

3. You make a mistake about the freedom of a created thing. It only can have freedom within bounds of its created nature. All the possible states of the creature are created by the creator. If a sin state exists then it was created by God otherwise it couldn't happen. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." It is clear that God is the agent of everything.

 

Also no human, at least according to Paul, can choose to be righteous. For whatever reason humans must sin. That is not a free agent choice. This state of being must also be intended by God, or be God's mistake, or it wouldn't exist. If you actually had a choice some humans would not need a savior.

 

4. Can you give any scripture in which God values the freedom of the individual above obedience? I can't think of one, but I'm getting old and it has been many years since I gave up my habit of reading the whole twice a year. Too me freedom of choice is a state wherein none of the choices are coerced.

 

co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es

1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.

2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.

3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

 

The choice of belief in Jesus as savior is coerced. Love me or I'll burn your face off. Umm, Ya sure I love you.

 

God has not forced one person to rebel against him, including you...

 

Its true that God has not forced me to rebel, because there is no God to do so. I've already examined my relationship with God as you suggest and found that one of the relatives of the relationship does not exist. I understand that you haven't the cognitive ability comprehend that I and others actually think, believe, know, that there is no god' and even if there were, it wouldn't be Yahweh.

 

You think that I'm poking my finger in God's eye, when what I'm doing is poking a finger in your eye. But don't get me wrong. I would poke my finger in your asshole God's eye if it did exist. It's just that it doesn't and I'm vain enough to not want to appear silly by introducing Harvey to all and sundry, which doesn't require much vanity as you can see.

 

The serpent had freedom originally just like all other free creatures. God didn't create the serpent to tempt, the serpent chose to become a tempter. Again, are you responsible for the sins of your children, or are they responsible for them. I mean, they are your offspring, so shouldn't you be blamed when they mess up? That logic doesn't work for children and parents, and it certainly doesn't carry with God and his creation. You are mistaking free creatures for little automatons.

 

Really? Dang, where do you get this information? Where is the snake freewill passage? Have you considered rewriting the scripture to get all this new bit of fairytale in. Are you saying that once upon a time that jellyfish could choose between right and wrong? How about sponges? Do dogs go to heaven? Are wolverines supposed to do unto others and all that?

 

1. Morally perfect means morally sinless, not incapable of sinning. Again, they had freedom to choose. Maybe perfect didn't convey the right idea, maybe morally uncorrupted would be better.

 

2. Then, I assume that you believe that people don't have freedom to choose. Or, do you believe that Adam and Eve were too ignorant to understand what "do not" meant. Adam and Eve were not children, they were described as adults. So, which is it?

 

3. If that is the case, then why aren't children of adults (for that is the analogy) arrested whenever a person breaks the law? The law assumes that when people reach adulthood that they become responsible for their own actions, this is the case even before adulthood in the U.S. I don't think your description of learn by mistake carries. Adam and Eve were instructed prior to their choosing to disobey. They didn't need to disobey to learn a lesson, they could have simply trusted that what God said would come true; i.e., if they disobeyed, they would die.

 

1. So this is something like a gamble on God's part. He flipped a coin and called heads, but it came down tails. Not even God can welsh on a bet I guess. It's good to know that God doesn't cheat and that he is willing to send billion of souls to perdition in order to be fair. What a guy. Wonder why he made the bet knowing that he would loose it.

 

2. Well you can choose your the color of your socks in the morning, but I don't bother I just grab two since I have two feet. But in regards to sin I'm told that I don't have a choice. I would choose to be good if I could. Ezekiel says I can, but Paul says I can't and since you are a Christian, I guess we'll have to go with Paul. So what choice am I left with?

Love me or I will burn your face off! Hey, I know that sort of thing turns some folks on, but it is just tooooo kinky for me.

 

3. They often are arrested. Maybe you don't keep up with the news.

 

You know damn well that people learn by mistake. Well maybe you don't. Maybe you are that ignorant. I'm beginning to wonder.

 

You instruct your child not to play with the loaded gun. You know that the child will play with the loaded gun in spite of the instructions because you know that the baby sitter will say it's ok to play with the gun. Do you leave the gun anyway if you are a good parent? You aren't a good parent if you do. Your God fantasy is not a good parent. He left the loaded gun laying around. Have you ever heard of a child that didn't disobey?

 

Here's the real rub of the fairytale: God knew that not only would Adam and Eve be fucked by their curiosity, but so would billions of souls to follow. Ya he's a peach of a dad alright.

 

Have you ever heard the term procreate? It means to beget and contains the word create.. If one brings children into the world, those children didn't exist until they were conceived of in the womb, therefore, the choice to bring children into the world is done knowing that they would break rules, probably break laws, and even hurt other people. Yet, people still bring children into the world. As for your explanation of God being absolutely responsible, you still fail to account for the freedom that God has granted us.

 

Really?, Christ's turd on a stick! I've never heard that one before.

 

It is sad but true that I have failed to account for the freedom you claim God granted us. But then you have failed to show that there is such a God to begin with. Try to keep the fact that I don't believe there is a Yahweh outside of myth and other fiction somewhere in the back of your mind. I'm doing my best to try to approach the argument as if there were such a thing, because I know you think there is. But you are not reciprocating very well. You are arguing to much from the assumption that I still think there is a god and that that god is Yahweh.

 

Here's my creed: There probably is no god, but if there is, it certainly isn't Yahweh or any of the others that I've so far heard about.

 

The point is I don't have to account for things that don't exist. There is no God, therefore God gave no freedom to anyone or anything. Evolution is sufficient to explain the misery and fucked up behavior of humans including but not limited to religious behavior.

[agnosticator]

LNC,

 

Everyone (or most) posing questions to you on this thread, used to think and believe the same things you are declaring. With these responses, they are giving you a chance that many christians never get. Of course the questions and reasonings are coming at you all at once. Take time to ponder these questions, instead of finding comebacks to counter them a.s.a.p. These are some of the many reasons we are no longer christians, and they are valid. It's not about "rebellion", but being honest with yourself and how you affect other's lives.

[LNC]

You believe. Nice mantra. Show us the evidence.

 

Let's think about this for a minute. There have been many debates on this board over the years examining the veracity of the claims that Jesus did indeed exist. Personally I think the evidence is wanting, but just for fun, let's give you your way here and say a man referred to in the NT existed.

 

I have already given evidence in this thread. The existence of Jesus is not a question for the vast majority of scholars, only a few on the fringes.

 

Where is the evidence that a dead man came back to life? Where is the evidence that this man was actually god who sent himself to save us from himself? Where is the evidence that god hates sin and that the blood of Jesus covers that sin? I could go on but you get the picture. These are extraordinary claims and the only evidence you have to back them up is the bible, which is basically a conglomeration of books chosen amongst a much larger group of books and everything we know about the claims were written by second, third and more hand witnesses. This wouldn't hold up in traffic court much less a scientific peer review.

 

So no, Christianity is not grounded in testable and verifiable evidence. It is taken purely on faith in a narrow reading of many possible ways to read the conglomeration of books referred to as the bible.

Ordinary claim: Jesus existed

 

Extraordinary claim: Jesus was god, he died, rose again and his blood sacrifice saves people from god's wrath.

 

Christians who come here like to sidetrack the extraordinary claim with the relatively ordinary claim.

 

Final note, gotta give you a hand here LNC, you've survived 13 pages here and haven't yet stormed off in a huff the way so many apologists do. You seem like an intelligent and reasonably educated person. Personally, I think you believe because you want to believe but that's your choice. Plugging all those holes in the dike must be exhausting though. I don't know how you find the energy to keep it up.

 

The evidence is contained within the eyewitness accounts, which we call the Gospels. Your knowledge of the writings of the Bible aren't historically or factually accurate. The Gospels were written by first hand and second hand witnesses (the second hand witnesses based their writings off of first hand witnesses). Yes, the Bible is a conglomeration of many different accounts, which is actually one of the strengths of the Bible over other books (e.g., the Qur'an). The fact that there are multiple attestations that are in agreement on all the major points is a strength of the Biblical accounts.

 

The Biblical accounts are testable as are any other historic documents and accounts. We have methods to test them for authenticity, historical context, etc. In fact, the Bible is probably the most scrutinized document from antiquity.

 

The evidence needs to be enough to convince a reasonable person that it is sufficient. We can all place evidential requirements on any claim that would prevent us from ever accepting that claim, so I don't necessarily buy into the extraordinary evidence argument.

 

Thanks for your kind words. We all believe what we choose to believe, whether that is theism, naturalism, or some other worldview. I simply believe that the evidence for Christian theism is the most reasonable, and I believe, that the holes in the naturalistic worldview (which is the most logical worldview for an atheist) are too many and too difficult to find reasonable answers to.

[agnosticator]

So LNC, what do you think the naturalistic worldview is?

[Kuroikaze]

Thanks for your kind words. We all believe what we choose to believe, whether that is theism, naturalism, or some other worldview. I simply believe that the evidence for Christian theism is the most reasonable, and I believe, that the holes in the naturalistic worldview (which is the most logical worldview for an atheist) are too many and too difficult to find reasonable answers to.

 

If naturalism is so bad, then do you take your children to the hospital? Shouldn't you just pray? How do you justify using a computer, when the technology was created using naturalistic assumptions? Do you save for retirement even though Jesus tells you not to?

 

I think you are a hypocrite, very comfortable with the naturalistic world view when it benefits you, willing to talk advantage of all the things a naturalistic world view provides you or act in accordance with it when it is useful too.

[Justin]

I have already given evidence in this thread. The existence of Jesus is not a question for the vast majority of scholars, only a few on the fringes.

 

As Vigile pointed out, there is a big difference in knowing that Jesus as a man, like you and i, existed and Jesus as the son of god having been real.

 

The evidence is contained within the eyewitness accounts, which we call the Gospels.

 

One needs extra biblical accounts to verify the existance of the son of god Jesus. The biblical accounts have to many holes in them to be taken seriously. Like Herrod's slaughter of the innocents never happening, and who was at the tomb when the women returned there?

 

The Biblical accounts are testable as are any other historic documents and accounts. We have methods to test them for authenticity, historical context, etc. In fact, the Bible is probably the most scrutinized document from antiquity.

 

Yes, and that is how we know it is filled with holes and flat out myths. Read 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman.

 

I simply believe that the evidence for Christian theism is the most reasonable, and I believe, that the holes in the naturalistic worldview (which is the most logical worldview for an atheist) are too many and too difficult to find reasonable answers to.

 

Really? Having to twist science and fact so it fits in with your religious beliefs is not difficult? Believing in talking animals, worshipping a barbaric and ruthless god, believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old, believing that we were created by a magical entity, believing in magic, believing that the fossil record is a result of a worldwide flood, believing that a man went to heaven in a flamming chariot, believing that the Red Sea (actually Reed Sea) parted to let some pass and then closed behind them on others, belieivng that the earth is flat and covered with a solid sky dome, believing in fire breathing sea monsters and flying serpents of fire, believing that a man came to earth to save all mankind and then died and rose back up to heaven... See what i mean? Straight out of the psuedeoscience handbook.

[Justin]

I do have kids. I do punish my kids when they disobey; however, the punishment always (or usually) is in proportion to the disobedience. My kids don't deserve eternal punishment as they have only disobeyed a finite individual (either me or their mother). When we rebel against God, we are rebelling against an infinite being, which requires an eternal punishment.

 

How does rebelling against an infinite being equal eternal punishment? One would think mere mortal humans rebelling against something so perfect and infinite as god wouldn't bother him at all. LNC, it all boils down to being punished infinately for finite sins, where the person is being tortured forever for sins that they only commited in an average human's lifespan. It's like if i create a robot and it malfunctions, who the fuck am i to ask it to ask me for forgivness. I am the creator, it is the created. I am the one who can fix it, it can't fix itself for its problem is something it cannot help. Which is exactly like sin. Sin is inescapable for us, yet we are to be held accountable for it and punished for all eternity?

[shantonu]

I do have kids. I do punish my kids when they disobey; however, the punishment always (or usually) is in proportion to the disobedience. My kids don't deserve eternal punishment as they have only disobeyed a finite individual (either me or their mother). When we rebel against God, we are rebelling against an infinite being, which requires an eternal punishment.

 

How does rebelling against an infinite being equal eternal punishment? One would think mere mortal humans rebelling against something so perfect and infinite as god wouldn't bother him at all. LNC, it all boils down to being punished infinately for finite sins, where the person is being tortured forever for sins that they only commited in an average human's lifespan. It's like if i create a robot and it malfunctions, who the fuck am i to ask it to ask me for forgivness. I am the creator, it is the created. I am the one who can fix it, it can't fix itself for its problem is something it cannot help. Which is exactly like sin. Sin is inescapable for us, yet we are to be held accountable for it and punished for all eternity?

 

You point out the very clear logical disconnect. Why does "rebelling against an infinite being require an eternal punishment"? It seems that it should require little or no punishment for two reason: (1) since God is infinitely powerful, you can't really rebel against Him in any meaningful way; and (2) since God is infinitely wise, surely he can come up with a better system than mere torment--after all even we humans know that torment doesn't really teach anyone anything, and thus we've moved away from torment as part of our justice system.

 

The first point I think you demonstrate admirably. The second point we've discussed at length in the "Hell is Excessive Punishment" thread.

 

If you put the points together you short-circuit LNC's entire cosmology.

[shantonu]

I do have kids. I do punish my kids when they disobey; however, the punishment always (or usually) is in proportion to the disobedience. My kids don't deserve eternal punishment as they have only disobeyed a finite individual (either me or their mother). When we rebel against God, we are rebelling against an infinite being, which requires an eternal punishment.

 

How does rebelling against an infinite being equal eternal punishment? One would think mere mortal humans rebelling against something so perfect and infinite as god wouldn't bother him at all. LNC, it all boils down to being punished infinately for finite sins, where the person is being tortured forever for sins that they only commited in an average human's lifespan. It's like if i create a robot and it malfunctions, who the fuck am i to ask it to ask me for forgivness. I am the creator, it is the created. I am the one who can fix it, it can't fix itself for its problem is something it cannot help. Which is exactly like sin. Sin is inescapable for us, yet we are to be held accountable for it and punished for all eternity?

 

You point out the very clear logical disconnect. Why does "rebelling against an infinite being require an eternal punishment"? It seems that it should require little or no punishment for two reasons: (1) since God is infinitely powerful, you can't really rebel against Him in any meaningful way; and (2) since God is infinitely wise, surely he can come up with a better system than mere torment--after all even we humans know that torment doesn't really teach anyone anything, and thus we've moved away from torment as part of our justice system.

 

The first point I think you demonstrate admirably. The second point we've discussed at length in the "Hell is Excessive Punishment" thread.

 

If you put the points together you short-circuit LNC's entire cosmology.

[freeday]

LNC,

 

A serial killer is on death-row, and 5 minutes before he gets the needle, he regrets all the murders, ask God for forgiveness, and even ask for Jesus to save him. He is executed. Where did he go? Hell or Heaven? And what is the justification for why he went there? Consider that he was truly honest about his regrets and sincerely prayed to God for forgiveness, and truly wanted Jesus to come into his life.

 

At the same time, the father to one of the victims dies of heart attack, caused by the sorrow and the intense years where the killer kept on appealing. The father was devastated, and had lost all faith in a good God, and lost faith in God completely. He died as an unbeliever. Where did he go? Heaven or Hell? And what is the justification for why he went there.

 

If you can't answer this, I would really seriously doubt you know your own "absolute" moral or truth. If ethics and morals are absolutes, you shouldn't have any problem to answer this, and answer it in such a way that it is morally justified (since morality isn't relative, but absolute). And you should realize that this is not a mere thought experiment, but are a very plausible scenario.

 

So how about it, what is the answer?

 

Wow, this post has gone all over the place.

 

I would postulate that we can't know the answer. It is not our burden to jugde; the authority of judgement is the responsibility of the Father. The bible does not disclose the by-laws of how this judgement will take place in these particular situations, or actually most situations. I feel confident is capitulating to God's discernment and authority through faith.

 

just my thoughts

[shantonu]

LNC,

 

A serial killer is on death-row, and 5 minutes before he gets the needle, he regrets all the murders, ask God for forgiveness, and even ask for Jesus to save him. He is executed. Where did he go? Hell or Heaven? And what is the justification for why he went there? Consider that he was truly honest about his regrets and sincerely prayed to God for forgiveness, and truly wanted Jesus to come into his life.

 

At the same time, the father to one of the victims dies of heart attack, caused by the sorrow and the intense years where the killer kept on appealing. The father was devastated, and had lost all faith in a good God, and lost faith in God completely. He died as an unbeliever. Where did he go? Heaven or Hell? And what is the justification for why he went there.

 

If you can't answer this, I would really seriously doubt you know your own "absolute" moral or truth. If ethics and morals are absolutes, you shouldn't have any problem to answer this, and answer it in such a way that it is morally justified (since morality isn't relative, but absolute). And you should realize that this is not a mere thought experiment, but are a very plausible scenario.

 

So how about it, what is the answer?

 

Wow, this post has gone all over the place.

 

I would postulate that we can't know the answer. It is not our burden to jugde; the authority of judgement is the responsibility of the Father. The bible does not disclose the by-laws of how this judgement will take place in these particular situations, or actually most situations. I feel confident is capitulating to God's discernment and authority through faith.

 

just my thoughts

 

I hear you. LNC dodged and dodged. I guess I can't force him to answer, but maybe you could look at 1 Samuel 5:3 and let me know what you make of it. Was that right? No pressure. I know it's not an easy question and I've been quite a dick about it in the past.

[Justin]

The second point we've discussed at length in the "Hell is Excessive Punishment" thread.

 

Good grief. Yes, but our resident funide hasn't been there for he just stays on this thread.

[Ouroboros]

You point out the very clear logical disconnect. Why does "rebelling against an infinite being require an eternal punishment"?

Yes, it surely is.

 

Or think about this, a crime by a finite being (a human) against another finite being (another human) does not immediately requires a life-time sentence! And especially not for the crime of not believing the other person. For instance, my wife say something, and I don't believe her, would that require a life-time sentence as punishment?

 

Christians really do try to find the most outrageous and extreme excuses for their beliefs.

[Ouroboros]

Wow, this post has gone all over the place.

 

I would postulate that we can't know the answer. It is not our burden to jugde; the authority of judgement is the responsibility of the Father. The bible does not disclose the by-laws of how this judgement will take place in these particular situations, or actually most situations. I feel confident is capitulating to God's discernment and authority through faith.

Such a typical Christian answer. Don't answer, but misdirect.

 

So how can you then judge morality? If the answer isn't clear to you, it means your morality is corrupt! To me it's clear that the innocent survivor deserves Heaven more than the serial killer, so belief in Jesus can not be the only saving factor. It is the Christians who claim morality is absolute, and here is a perfect example of how to judge a moral dilemma in the perspective of the eternal, and you say you can't know? Your excuse is that it is all over the place? It is a perfect example of real, live people, who either will go to Heaven or Hell. And you say you don't know? Then how can you know if any Christian actually go to Heaven, or that non-Christians do not? You don't, do you? So in essence, anyone could potentially be saved and go to Heaven, and your whole religion is just a big game of getting as many adherents as possible. Don't shove "absolutes" in peoples faces, unless you can back it up! So does "absolute" exist, if you have no answer for real life examples?

 

What about the trolley dilemma? I asked it before, and no Christian can give a good answer. It is one of the prime examples of the problems of moral actions, and if moral is absolute, then the trolley dilemma should be easy to solve.

 

The example I gave is something that happens, and any normal person would feel very bad thinking that the serial killer would get off so easy, while the innocent survivor would suffer for infinite time. So in the end, the Christian view on God's justice is skewed and their descriptions of God's actions are in fact immoral. Unless you save God's face by claiming that God gives justice based on some complete different factors than "to believe in Jesus." If morality is as Christians say something that is absolute and easy to understand, then it would be natural to say that the serial killer deserves hell, regardless of his belief, while the innocent survivor would get heaven (where no tears or sorrows exists). Can you really deny this?

 

So what is justice, or ultimate justice, if God gives free pass to those who commit severe crimes and extreme immoral acts, while punishing "unbelief" as an infinite crime?

 

Or lets put it this way, in very simple terms: will I go to Hell? I haven't killed anyone, and I do good to my family, and my friends, and work hard and delinquent. But I don't believe in God or Jesus. Will I go to Hell? If the answer is Yes, I actually believe you are immorally corrupt.

 

---edit---

 

Listen, the problem is that it is the Christians who claim that people who do not believe in Jesus will go to Hell. That whole idea is a corrupt idea. It is dumb, seriously. And if Christians keep on claiming that as a fact, and that they believe it's an absolute truth, then how the heck is my story above beyond explanation? Either you believe it, or you don't! Don't escape the ugly truth by putting the blame on the person presenting the dilemma to you, but stand up for your faith and defend what you believe. If you don't know, then never, ever again claim that Jesus is a requirement for the ticket to heaven!

 

(Sorry for putting so much pressure on you freeday, you're fairly okay, but you have to face the music and stand up for what you believe, or change your beliefs.)