Hit And Run Xtians

[LNC]

Shantonu on more than one occasion put up the sites you were getting your info from.

 

I went back to look at what his claims were. OK, yes I did get my information about the differences between the Gilgamesh flood accout from the site he cited. That is called research and it is legitimate to rely on research that others have done for these specific comparisons. The second citing that he listed was not legitimate as I had never seen that site before I clicked on his link and he really didn't show in what way he believed that I copied from that site. Now, I am not saying that my arguments are original as they are used and have been used by Christian philosophers and theologians going all the way back to the apostle Paul through Augustine, Aquinas, and many others. However, I could go to the works of people like Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and many others to find the arguments used by people on this site, not to mention the TalkOrigins site which is an old standby for atheists. So, research is done on both sides. If we want to start playing Shantonu's gotcha game, I can play it too. I will say that whoever asks the the questions, "who created God?" simply copied it from Dawkins. None of us ultiimately has original ideas or arguments on this site.

 

The only reason that I didn't answer this earlier is that I hadn't gotten to responding to the pages where he listed these sites before the thread was closed.

[Ouroboros]

God gives a command and then it is up to us as to whether we will obey that command.

Which command? The one where you are commanded to stone your unruly child, or the one where you are commanded to sell everything you own and give to the poor? Oh, yeah, now I remember, those are not God's commands to you, but only to someone else. While the command, "Trust LNC because he is the Holy Truth Holder from God," must be ringing in our ears from God's throne. Mysterious how God always end up on your side, regardless of which belief you currently hold.

[Abiyoyo]

Actually, the Bible says that Jonah was swallowed by a large fish, not a whale which is a mammal rather than a fish. Now, how is God having Jonah swallowed by a fish in some way a violation of his free will? That would be like saying that traffic jams violate my free will as I desire to get to work in a timely fashion. Jonah freely chose to change his choice after being redeposited on dry land.

 

Actually, Jesus called it a whale

 

Matt 12:40

40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

(KJV)

 

.....moving on....1) God spoke to Jonah 2) Jonah didn't obey God 3) God caused a storm to make the people in the boat to wonder what they did to

 

God, ....Jonah told them it was his fault 4) Jonah got swallowed by a whale that God 'prepared for him'.

 

Jonah 1:17

17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

(KJV)

 

5) Jonah prayed to God in the whale 6) God cause the whale to 'vomit' him up, .....in Nineveh 7)Jonah did what God told him to do originally.

 

Jonah didn't have a choice Biblically, God caused chaos, and almost terminated his life to do what He said to do. That's not freewill, or letting us make our own choices.

 

God hardened Pharohs heart, of which we don't quite understand the implications, however, Pharoh freely made the choices that he did and was and is held accountable to them.

 

God gives a command and then it is up to us as to whether we will obey that command. So, there could be some confusion as to what free will is and what free choice is. Again, I subscribe to free agency, which allows for both man's choice and God's sovereignty to work together.

 

It specifically says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that, He(God) could show them signs.

 

Exod 7:3

3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

(KJV)

[Looking4Answers]

LNC said:

 

Maybe, I should have put that differently, God doesn't have to violate free will to save anyone as I explained earlier.

 

There are two ways of looking as will. Theologians have referred to the two types of will expressed by God in various ways over the years, including his sovereign will vs. his moral will, his preceptive will vs. his decretive will, his efficient will vs. his permissive will, his secret will vs. his revealed will, etc. The bottom line is that there are some things that he wills, but permits freedom, and other things that he wills that definitely come to pass. So, there is both a level of freedom that God permits man and a level where God imposes his sovereign will. It would be what I would refer to as the free agency of man.

 

But see, you are doing it again. You are referring to man's ideas/concepts about god. These ideas may find some form or fashion within the Bible or they may not. However, they simply seem like excuses for when someone wants to contend with a Christian about how god functions in the affairs of men. But it all comes out (to me) as a bunch of jargon that does nothing more than obscure the discussion (in my opinion).

 

God neither forces people into hell, nor forces people into heaven.

 

Really? If a man is born in some unexplored jungle, lives his life and dies having never heard about the god of the Bible, then he will go to hell. He had no choice in this matter. Yet the Bible is clear that NO MAN comes to the father (god) but by me (Jesus).

 

Have you ever watched any of the Saw movies? They are horror films, so I kind of doubt it. However, there are some interesting concepts in these films. Jigsaw, the "villain" of the film, puts people in situations where they have to make moral decisions that no one in their right mind would want to make. For example, he might have two people chained to opposite ends of the room. One person is given a bullet and a gun is within reach. The other person does not have the same option. A tape recorder is there and, when played, the tape explains that the first person (the one with the gun) will be set free if he kills the other person. It is also explained that if he does not kill the other man then someone will kill the first man's wife and child. Because of the set up, no other option is given. It is either kill the other man or allow your family to be murdered. Then Jigsaw sets a time table in which the decision needs to be made.

 

Is this really free choice? Sure, the first man can choose to not kill the other man, but his family will be murdered. Or he can become a murderer himself. This is not really a choice. In fact, it is the illusion of choice.

 

It seems to me that the choice between heaven or hell is similar. It is really not a choice. It is a threat from the Jigsaw in the sky. Either we, as a people, bow down to the murderous god who is guilty of more bloodshed then all other killers and wars combined or we condemn our own selves to an eternity of pain. This is not a choice. It is self preservation, which limits free will in every way. If my house is on fire, I could exercise my free will to sit back and watch TV, but that would be quite foolish. So my freedom of choice is so restricted (in this case) as to have no choice but to flee.

 

God may not "force" anyone into either heaven or hell but, like Jigsaw, who never technically murdered anyone, he forces the choice upon people in such a way that free choice is really not an option. Thus, free will becomes and illusion. As does the idea that god does not force anyone into either place.

 

Now, you claim that Christianity has erroneous claims about God, which requires that you have superior knowledge about God. Let me ask you, from where do you derive your knowledge, and what knowledge do you you have that proves that Christianity holds erroneous views?

 

One does not need to have superior knowledge about god to claim that the Christians have erroneous claims. All one needs to do is examine the so-called Holy Book of Christianity to see its flaws. If one presupposes that the Bible is indeed the very word of god, then one only needs to read it contents. Yet, within its covers we find a god in contradiction, who claims to be all knowing, but is confused by some things, feels the need to ask questions and ultimately gets upset at what he has created because it just didn't turn out the way he expected it to. We find a god that claims to be all merciful and all loving that murders those whom he says he loves and threatens them with both violence in this life and eternal torment in the next. We find a being that claims to be all powerful, but finds himself to be powerless in many situations. We find a god that offers to men a choice and then, when it does not suit him, makes it impossible for that individual to make that choice.

 

Then we can also examine the teachings of the church or any denomination. We find that not only do Christians not agree with each other, but that most do not accept all of what is written within their own holy book.

 

No, it does not take superior knowledge to examine the claims made about the Christian god. It only takes a little common sense.

 

Actually, the Bible says that Jonah was swallowed by a large fish, not a whale which is a mammal rather than a fish. Now, how is God having Jonah swallowed by a fish in some way a violation of his free will? That would be like saying that traffic jams violate my free will as I desire to get to work in a timely fashion. Jonah freely chose to change his choice after being redeposited on dry land. God hardened Pharohs heart, of which we don't quite understand the implications, however, Pharoh freely made the choices that he did and was and is held accountable to them.

 

Who cares what the animal was that swallowed Jonah in the story. The Hebrews certainly had a very limited understanding of animal kinds (or at least classified them differently than we do today). They classified bats as birds and talk about the four footed winged creatures and the like. So perhaps the "fish" was a whale or a fish. It really does not matter.

 

But Jonah was not really given a choice. He was told to go to Nineveh. He did not want to go and plotted a course in a different direction. God took away that choice and ensured that Jonah got to Nineveh regardless. This is not "free will." This is limited choice. This is, again, like the Saw/Jigsaw example I talk about above.

 

There is no indication that Pharaoh made a free choice in the matter of the Israelite slaves. In fact, one part of the story shows that Pharaoh INTENDED to let the Israelites go, but god was not ready for that and so god hardened Pharaoh's heart, thus changing Pharaoh's mind. That is certainly not a free choice.

 

The problem is, especially in our modern age, that people living in free societies don't like the idea that someone would take away or restrict our choices. Therefore, if the Bible seems to indicate a god that does just that, then our modern attitudes rebel against it. This just shows us that the Christian religion's teachings, in many ways, are just a reaction to the current social climate we find ourselves in. Freedom is important to us today. Therefore, it must be important to god as well. However, the Bible seems to show a god that at least claims he is in absolute control of all things, including the very affairs of men (Daniel states this in his book). He supposedly even has the heart of the king in his hand and turns it as he pleases. The Bible even teaches that man's heart is wicked above all things and that we are deceived by it. So even our supposed free will choices are made in light of the deceived counsel we receive from our own selves.

 

While I don't believe the Bible is the word of god in any way, shape or form, I do believe that the book teaches that man is a slave and that no part of him is free (including his will). As a result, the choice of heaven or hell is an illusion (in the Bible) and the god of the Bible is just playing a game with people's lives.

[Abiyoyo]

God gives a command and then it is up to us as to whether we will obey that command. So, there could be some confusion as to what free will is and what free choice is. Again, I subscribe to free agency, which allows for both man's choice and God's sovereignty to work together.

 

Give 3each, OT and NT references, that defines your view.

[agnosticator]

LNC:

If God could be known by by man completely, he would not be God.

 

 

So, "god" would be known by man in heaven and the new earth, and he would not be god. If you would accept god as a mystery, I'd understand. But I know you don't. You have no knowledge of god; just subjective opinion from a book no different in knowledge than the koran.

[Abiyoyo]

God gives a command and then it is up to us as to whether we will obey that command.

 

LNC,

 

What is the greatest commandments.

 

 

Matt 22:37-40

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

(KJV)

 

There you have it LNC. That's all that Jesus summed everything up to be to the Jews.

Now, what did Jesus tell the disciples.

 

 

Matt 28:20

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

(KJV)

 

 

So, there you have it to the Jews, and Jewish followers of Christ. Now, the Gentiles (which is you and everyone else that isn't a Jew)

 

 

Acts 21:25

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

(KJV)

 

 

That's it! I wish it were that simple with Christians.

[Abiyoyo]

I want to add to that last post this is why I contend with Paul. He, Paul, is the one that guided his early churches, ....by his own methods of what he thought the church should be. Hence, my aviator.

[Justin]

Actually, the Bible says that Jonah was swallowed by a large fish, not a whale which is a mammal rather than a fish. Now, how is God having Jonah swallowed by a fish in some way a violation of his free will? That would be like saying that traffic jams violate my free will as I desire to get to work in a timely fashion. Jonah freely chose to change his choice after being redeposited on dry land. God hardened Pharohs heart, of which we don't quite understand the implications, however, Pharoh freely made the choices that he did and was and is held accountable to them.

 

It says both, as YoYo pointed out. It also calls a bat a bird. This all goes back to what i was saying in the other threads, the Bible is a product of its times and is filled with things that people believed back then, whales were fish and bats were birds, flat earth and solid sky dome, monsters, etc.

 

LNC how do you account for Esau is you believe that god gives people free will?

[Justin]

Shantonu on more than one occasion put up the sites you were getting your info from.

 

I went back to look at what his claims were. OK, yes I did get my information about the differences between the Gilgamesh flood accout from the site he cited. That is called research and it is legitimate to rely on research that others have done for these specific comparisons. The second citing that he listed was not legitimate as I had never seen that site before I clicked on his link and he really didn't show in what way he believed that I copied from that site. Now, I am not saying that my arguments are original as they are used and have been used by Christian philosophers and theologians going all the way back to the apostle Paul through Augustine, Aquinas, and many others. However, I could go to the works of people like Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and many others to find the arguments used by people on this site, not to mention the TalkOrigins site which is an old standby for atheists. So, research is done on both sides. If we want to start playing Shantonu's gotcha game, I can play it too. I will say that whoever asks the the questions, "who created God?" simply copied it from Dawkins. None of us ultiimately has original ideas or arguments on this site.

 

The only reason that I didn't answer this earlier is that I hadn't gotten to responding to the pages where he listed these sites before the thread was closed.

 

 

First, why don't you go and bring some of those arguements from that closed thread into a new thread. Second, you quoted almost word for word on some of those sites and did not quote it or list the reference. All you had to do was put quotation marks on them or show a link. This is how someone gets to be called a 'cut and paster'.

[agnosticator]

LNC:

If God could be known by by man completely, he would not be God.

 

So, jesus could not have been god.

[Abiyoyo]

LNC:

If God could be known by by man completely, he would not be God.

 

So, jesus could not have been god.

 

Agnosticator, I was thinking that myself. That.....would mean that LNC doesn't believe in the trinity.

[Skeptic]

God hardened Pharohs heart, of which we don't quite understand the implications, however, Pharoh freely made the choices that he did and was and is held accountable to them.

 

No he isn't accountable. God is. He's the one who hardened the pharaoh's heart. If he hadn't have done that, the pharaoh could've let them leave without a fight. God even mentioned that he was going to do this beforehand to Moses. Then god hardens the pharaoh's heart again and has the Egyptians follow the Jews and get killed. How can you possibly interpret this story as the pharaoh making his own choices when it clearly says that god hardened his heart? This is the main bible story that caused me to admit to myself that I've always been an atheist. Before, I believed that the pharaoh made the choice, like you do, but after reading the story, I could no longer believe that. It clearly says that god hardened his heart and then killed all the first born sons and even animals, which is an unjust punishment. How you can interpret this story in the way that you do and just turn your back to the horror of it is baffling to me.

[Skeptic]

I will say that whoever asks the the questions, "who created God?" simply copied it from Dawkins.

 

I asked my mother this when I was five years old, before I even knew who Richard Dawkins was. I ask it now not to copy him, but because I thought of the question on my own, and because I know no christian will ever give me an answer better than "he always existed," the exact answer I got from my mom. There are those of us on this site who do think for ourselves (I would venture to guess that more than 85% do) and don't just regurgitate quotes and quips from atheist authors. If anything, I encounter more christians who do this than atheists or ex-christians. Once you move out of the cult, you tend to want to think for yourself rather than let someone in authority do the thinking for you.

[agnosticator]

LNC:

If God could be known by by man completely, he would not be God.

 

So, jesus could not have been god.

 

Agnosticator, I was thinking that myself. That.....would mean that LNC doesn't believe in the trinity.

 

...making him a deist? Or he could start his own cult: THE CHURCH OF LNCOLOGY

[Thurisaz]

Is your gawd omniscient and the creator of everything? Or is this the time for you to admit that your cult's dogma is a lie?

 

I don't have a gawd, but God is omniscient and the creator of everything.

 

You just admitted that there is no free will.

 

End of discussion.

 

Moron.

 

*PLONK*

[R. S. Martin]

I will say that whoever asks the the questions, "who created God?" simply copied it from Dawkins.

 

I asked my mother this when I was five years old, before I even knew who Richard Dawkins was. I ask it now not to copy him, but because I thought of the question on my own, and because I know no christian will ever give me an answer better than "he always existed," the exact answer I got from my mom.

 

Has ever a child NOT asked who made God?

 

Moms and Sunday School teachers tell this story and say God made this and God made that, and the starry-eyed child waits to hear "and who made God" but suddenly the story-telling ends. Thinking the adult just missed or skipped a part, the child asks the obvious, "Who made God?" The parent replied, "Nobody made God." Child, "But where did God come from?" In this conversation about beginnings, where the very world that has always existed had a beginning, it is unthinkable that this magic God did not have a beginning, too. Parent, "God didn't come from anywhere. God always existed." The parent looks so sincere that the child begins to realize the parent isn't playing any tricks or pulling any legs this time.

 

I doubt LNC was born yet when this happened to me and Richard Dawkins might have been in college but he had NOT written any of his books yet.

 

There are those of us on this site who do think for ourselves (I would venture to guess that more than 85% do) and don't just regurgitate quotes and quips from atheist authors. If anything, I encounter more christians who do this than atheists or ex-christians. Once you move out of the cult, you tend to want to think for yourself rather than let someone in authority do the thinking for you.

 

The cult-forum where I found LNC (yeah, it was me who brought the guy over because I was naive enough to think people like HanSolo could talk sense to him)--anyway I've been shocked by the mimi-cry on the cult-forum where I found the guy. I read a few of the books and articles of their leaders and I found if you've read one book you're read them all. If you've talked with one Christian you've talked with them all. It's as though they divide up the workload so that one specializes in one topic and another in something else. Gary Habermas spent his life on studying the resurrection and he plans on doing this so long as it needs to be done. There is no indication about what kind of personal satisfaction he derives from the research after thirty years, or how it stimulates his intellectual curiosity. William Lane Craig specializes on the Kalam Cosmological Argument as evidence for God's existence and he repeats the same old arguments everywhere he goes and when he runs out of ammunition he recycles the old arguments.

 

One gets the feeling these guys do it the same way others go door-to-door or missionizing--for the glory of god rather than for any personal pleasure or for contributing to the fund of human knowledge. Given that only the highly priviledged of our world have access to higher education, this seems so very wrong.

 

These guys use up resources to research this garbage without so much as providing a single shred of evidence of god's existence. God's existence is presupposed and they argue from there. They think this is the best way to interact with nonChristians. They won't tell you that but I found a few articles and it sure fits the picture. What I have not yet found is a rationnal for thinking this approach could possibly work with nonChristians, esp. atheists.

[agnosticator]

R.S.Martin:

The cult-forum where I found LNC (yeah, it was me who brought the guy over because I was naive enough to think people like HanSolo could talk sense to him)--anyway I've been shocked by the mimi-cry on the cult-forum where I found the guy. I read a few of the books and articles of their leaders and I found if you've read one book you're read them all. If you've talked with one Christian you've talked with them all.

 

Hmmm...so you are to blame lol!

Yes, They tend to network and follow their own agenda. I got out by interrupting the agenda and asking the hard questions from all sides of the issue. I read everything I could from "the enemy", and here I am!

 

These guys use up resources to research this garbage without so much as providing a single shred of evidence of god's existence. God's existence is presupposed and they argue from there. They think this is the best way to interact with nonChristians. They won't tell you that but I found a few articles and it sure fits the picture. What I have not yet found is a rationnal for thinking this approach could possibly work with nonChristians, esp. atheists.

 

They can't or won't think outside the box.

[oddbird1963]

I will say that whoever asks the the questions, "who created God?" simply copied it from Dawkins.

 

Didn't Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos series, raise the same point? I remember watching a segment of his video series and he asked the question.

 

Didn't his work precede Dawkins?

 

Although, I too remember asking my grandfather the question way back in 1972 when I was nine years old. After I pressed him with one or two follow up questions, I got the response , "You've just got to have faith. It takes faith." Of course, I know now that was the "spiritual" way of saying "Shut up!"

[Abiyoyo]

R.S.Martin:

The cult-forum where I found LNC (yeah, it was me who brought the guy over because I was naive enough to think people like HanSolo could talk sense to him)--anyway I've been shocked by the mimi-cry on the cult-forum where I found the guy. I read a few of the books and articles of their leaders and I found if you've read one book you're read them all. If you've talked with one Christian you've talked with them all.

 

Hmmm...so you are to blame lol!

Yes, They tend to network and follow their own agenda. I got out by interrupting the agenda and asking the hard questions from all sides of the issue. I read everything I could from "the enemy", and here I am!

 

These guys use up resources to research this garbage without so much as providing a single shred of evidence of god's existence. God's existence is presupposed and they argue from there. They think this is the best way to interact with nonChristians. They won't tell you that but I found a few articles and it sure fits the picture. What I have not yet found is a rationnal for thinking this approach could possibly work with nonChristians, esp. atheists.

 

They can't or won't think outside the box.

 

I wonder what website it is. I seem to be good at pointing out to other Christians, flaws in their doctrines

[Ouroboros]

Bertrand Russell asked "Who created God" in Why I am not a Christian:

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

 

He also makes reference to John Stuart Mill's autobiography that Mill also had this argument. And if we go back in time, I'm certain there might be anti-apologetic writings saying the same thing.

[Neon Genesis]

Who wants to bet that three or four pages from now, LNC will realize he's lost and run away without admitting it like the rest of them?

[LNC]

Obviously he doesn't. Because if he did, he could change my mind. He could give me enough arguments for me to believe, but he doesn't.

 

My last action as label Christian I prayed to God. I was losing my faith, I had a hard time believing in the Christian God, so I prayed one time to ask God to give me any evidence or anything that I could hold unto so I could believe. But unfortunately it was silent. I haven't seen anything, or heard anything, neither miraculous nor from any human being (including you) to which has convinced me that God exists. If God exists, he would know what I'm asking for. And since you're a human, the challenge is for you to ask God what it is I need, so you can give it to me. But obviously (again), God doesn't speak to you.

 

That assumes that God's main interest is to get people to believe that he exists, which I believe is not his main interest. However, supposing that he stamped every person and every star and planet with his signature; I would imagine that there would be many people who would complain that God was imposing himself on us. No, God has given sufficient evidence for a person to know that he exists and I don't imagine that Bertrand Russell was ever able to open his mouth to haughtily ask God why he didn't give him enough evidence.

 

It is not my job to give you what you need to believe in his existence either. If you have neglected or ignored the evidence that he has given you, what more could I give? It is much like the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man asked Abraham to send someone to his brothers to warn them and Abraham replied, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." Jesus rose from the dead, what more evidence is needed?

 

Obviously he has not, since I don't believe.

 

There is a difference between sufficient evidence and the acceptance of that evidence. People deny scientific theories these days that are well grounded in evidence, not because the evidence is insufficient, but due to other reasons.

 

Again, obviously Paul is wrong. Since he presents conclusions based on religious presumptions and prejudice.

 

Same old stuff. Have heard these arguments for years now. Seriously, is that all you religious can come up with? Your arguments here only confirmed that you don't know if God exists or not, and you make excuses for what would be a natural act by a loving God. You're the spokesperson for God, saying "I'm sorry, but God is busy, but I can tell you what he meant to say." I don't buy that. If God exists, God would know what I need to believe. After all I was Christian for 30 years, but when faith falters, only God can save it and I asked, but God choose not to or I only spoke into thin air.

 

Really, why should I not conclude that it is you who is prejudiced? On what basis do you conclude that Paul is religiously prejudiced?

 

Now, you claim knowledge of me based upon these brief conversation? You claim knowledge beyond what a mere mortal could possess, do you have some supernatural source of knowledge? Or, can you give me the evidence on which you base such a lofty conclusion?

 

Again, God is not interested in you believing that he exists, he is interested in worshipers. Whether you were ever a worshiper of God, I cannot say. And, I don't know how you define being a Christian either, so I cannot base anything on that statement. All I can say is that the evidence is not just sufficient for a person to believe in the existence of God, it is hard to ignore. Can it be ignored, sure, but it requires some creative thinking and explanations to do so.

[LNC]

So the same rules, morals, free will, logic, etc apply to the Devil? Even first cause, prescience, omniscience...? God knew Satan would rebel, and God knew he had to create Hell, and he knew he would have to send billions of people to Hell for eternal torture.

 

It's all just a game to God or a big experiment. But why do that? He already know what will happen? So God must be extremely bored. Why does God need humans with free will doing good and believing in him so he can have them for eternity in a some magical land of Oz? What is the purpose of God doing all this?

 

Based on the "absolute" morality planted in me by my God, I would say that your God is sick.

 

To know what will happen and to cause it to happen are two different things. Nobody going to hell is going there involuntarily. Nobody in hell would even want to be in heaven as that would mean that they would have to be in the constant presence of God, whom they hate. This is no game to God. He sent his son to die at the hands of his own creation in order to pay for the rebellion of his own creation against him. Rebellion that is completely unjustified and deserving of the most severe punishment. The fact that God saves any of us is due to his patience, long suffering, mercy, kindness, and grace.

 

No, it is we who are sick and sinful. To rebel against a God who has offered us nothing but good is a very sick response indeed!

[LNC]

Heaven/hell are the only options and if we disagree with the bible, we are assigned to hell. No choice on our part. You only fool yourself to buy into it.

 

Biblical Christianity displays it's version of god, and claims its god is the true god. We have no way of knowing anything about god. God is a mystery, if god exists. So, the bible is false and has not proven anything objectively verifiable about god. Don't play games and pretend you haven't read any of my past posts on the subject.

 

Yes, heaven and hell are the only options; however, a person doesn't go to hell for disagreeing with the Bible, a person goes to hell for willful and unjust rebellion against God.

 

You say that we have no way of knowing anything about God which is a self-refuting knowledge statement about God. You say that God is a mystery, again a knowledge statement about God. How could you possibly know any of this about God if what you say is true? So, it is actually your statements that are logically fallacious, and not the Bible that is false.