You obviously dont understand, or don't want to understand what I was trying to say... So god creates hell, creates us, and says "choose me or suffer eternally." He then decides to create the idea of right and wrong, knowing that this is going to doom millions, billions to hell. Then he sets humans up for failure by giving us Luficer and a tree not to eat off of to make sure that plenty do get to suffer. Then he lets misscarried children into heaven on a free ticket, becuase they got to bypass free will in momma's tummy. At the same time he allows serial killers to be born and slaughter 30+ women. I mean, please, isn't this all a little rediculous to be coming from a god that supposedly cares about you and wants you to be with him? Like I said "free will" doesn't have to be about right and wrong. God didn't have to give us "right and wrong" to give us free will. A world with no evil or wrong doesn't mean there isn't any free will.... I don't understand how it isn't obvious to so many more people that this religion and so many others is just a tool to control the masses. It has laws, it has bad stuff that happens to you if you don't follow and believe, it even asks for your damn money! Now, why would god need your money? Why would he make his religion so cryptic if he wants everyone to come to heaven? Now, as far as the OT. These guys were seeing god all the time. Or maybe more better said, god was presenting himseld to them all the time. Clouds, flames, mountian tops, etc. Why don't we see him anymore? Christians have plenty excuses of why we do not (and trust me, I've heard them all), but has this thought ever occured: When crazy, unexplainable things happen in nature we now have science to explain it. We know way too much in this day and age to call it god. Back then, however, is another story. How would someone with no strong scientific knoweldge of the earth explain something like the northern lights? It definitely seems like something supernatural. The bible is a good book. I especially enjoy the stories in the OT. There are many good lessons to be learned. But it cannot be taken literally.
And there in lies your free will. It is apparent that you have chosen to disobey God. From my belief, you will go to hell, in your belief, you will go into a grave and exist no longer.
Yep this is taking the usual course. I think the reason why you don't think I'm answering your question is because, your "question" really isn't a question at all, but a protest, an expression of deep contempt for an idea presented in Christianity. I don't think you're really asking why evil or Hell exist, but merely expressing your dislike of such ideas. If you really were inquiring about these, I'm inclined to believe you'd make an attempt at answering what I've set forth as answers, but instead you keep shouting the same things. Much like a protester who proclaims "No to 68! No to 60!" you're not looking for answer, just bent on expressing your protest. Ah, the common objection. Science doesn't prove anything, it's in a constant state of flux. Science fails to even prove it's own process. Science deals with what's empirical, what observeable, what's testable. Science has limitations you see. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existense of God. This isn't to say that science is bad, just that there are those 'hyper'-scientist who regard science as more than it really is.
Apparently, so does the Christian god. So you would say that the concepts of Hell, The Fall, Sin, and Redemption are fair from a mortal point of view? Earlier you stated that we have a "sort of freewill", how can there be any gray area in regards to freewill? If humans are not aware of a choice when it comes to a relationship with God how can they be accountable?
Yes! And I'm glad you see this because it can go a long way in understanding the meaning of "omnipotence". Remeber me mentioning Hebrews 6:18 which states that God cannot lie? This is a limitation. Unfortunately many non-Christians don't comprehend what it is they're even arguing against, which causes them have a completely non-Christian conception of God. Remember Christianitiy is a very complex system. It can be very frustrating when a non-Christian attempts to argue against Christianity only to reveal that he really doesn't know what he's even talking about. Well you'll have to elaborate more on this. How is fairness only be considered from a mortal point of view? If fairness is an absolute standard, fair is fair regardless of the point of view, otherwise it's not really absolute and you have no argument. If God isn't the being fair, then show me by what standard you're judging Him, since you seem to be assuming an objective law that exist above, and beyond Him. NO gray areas, just different "sorts" of freewill which have been proposed. Obviously I don't have the freewill to do what ever I please. I can't will myself to teleport to the moon for example. However I do have the freewill to abide by a choosen moral maxim. I can choose to lie or not to lie. I can choose to murder or not to murder. And what about those who've never heard the Gospel? God has revealed Himself to all via natural revelation externally through nature and the universe (Romans 1:19-20; Palsm 19:1), and internally through moral conscience. (Romans 2:14-15). Also, God is just (Romans 2:5-11; 2 Corinthians 5:10), and those who seek shall find (Matthew 7:7)
Reminds me of the old question, "Is murder wrong because God says so, or does God say so because it's wrong?" If it's not an unfair system, at the very least the deck is stacked against us. Why so vague? cryptic? If you ask 200 people walking by if they would rather go to heaven or hell it's almost certain all 200 will say heaven. When I talk to my grandfather about Christianity the first thing that always pops into his head is corrupt televangelists. I believe people want to know truth and live by it, but when a person is born and God himself already know that ultimately that person is going to hell (regardless of whether they are a "good" person or not) it's seems in my mortal view to be "unfair". What standard? I guess my consience(sp). If everthing in me shouts that something is wrong how do I ignore that? Same reason I wouldn't shoot someone in the back or trip a cripple. That same sense of right and wrong tell me that the god of the bible is cruel and unfair. So god can change everything to make it perfect and just chooses not to. God doesn't have to create Lucifer or Nebachaneezer or Moses or me. He chooses to. But I don't know If that negates responsiblity regardless of what the individual person's choices are. God is still the Alpha and Omega. Inaction is just as powerful as action. I could choose not to save a person from drowning even though i had the ability. Would I be complicit in that person's death? Would God be? Somewhere in the New Testament(don't ask me where) I believe it states that to see evil and do nothing is a sin as well (I think it might have been Paul who said it). Is God exempt from this? Why? btw, if I wander off of the topic a bit, you'll have to excuse me...
Well Shane, I've asked a simple question. This whole time you've gone on and on about how unfair the situation is, now I won't to know what "fair" is. By what objective standard do you judge the "fairness" of something? How do you even know what "fair" is?
If you'd read through my post you'd see I answered both those questions. 1.) I don't have an objective standard for fairness and didn't claim to. 2.) I rely on my conscience(sp) to tell me what fair is. Please don't glace over my posts.
I didn't "glace" over your post. If you hold to no objective standard, than why do you even bother arguing your point? Why do you waste both yours and my time? You've spent the last few pages grumbling over how unfair God is, and now you tell me that you have no way of even objectively knowing if God is being fair or not! Why have you been arguing "fairness" this whole time as if I was suppose to comply to your "fairness", as if "fairness" was an objective standard, as if God had to comply to what you precieve as being "fair"? All this time, you weren't being rational, only arguing your subjective feelings. We might as well have been arguing over which food taste better, or which type of music sounds beter.
To me, his posts didn't seem concerned about the "fairness" of god. Why would anyone who doesn't believe in God care if he is fair? If he doesn't exist than he can't be fair or unfair. I think he was just trying to understand why people seem to not notice or care about the contradictions and nonsensical nature of the christian god.
He, was arguing that the Christain God is unfair. Rather or not he believes in Him is actualy irrelavant, since he's still appealing to "fairness" irregardless. ...but now his secret's out. He really can't tell if anyone's being fair! All he can do is argue his feelings. But what's the point of that? I bet this is the very thing he accuses Christians of doing. Why should I or anyone, for that matter, comply to his feelings?
Good. Maybe you can go talk about your feelings to your wife or girlfriend. When you have a rational argument, and worldview that actually makes sense, come see me. Until then, peace!
God is exempt from this because God CAN'T sin. God Can't do something-- sin. So therefore God is not all powerful as he says. One of the many, many contradictions in Christianity/The Bible.
Oh, and P.S. Come on guys, kiss and make up!!! These issues are complex and sometimes you have to be willing to agree to disagree even though it is sooooooooooooo frustrating that someone can't seem to believe your viewpoint even though it makes so much sense to you! I, for one, have really enjoyed reading this particular thread... DON'T STOP... or at least, don't stop mad...
Jatom... uh-oh, I think I have to take back my compliment on how respectfully you have argued your point... I was a little disappointed here...
SingflowerCat, read post 61 please. The intention of this post (the above quote) and my prior four posts was actually to bait him. The past few pages were an attack on my worldview, so I was only trying to show that his claims were groundless (i.e., he has no grounds to claim "fairness") and sift the attack in the other direction. The tone of my last four post was merely an attept to show the intensity of my challenge, and also an attempt at baiting him to bite. (This tone is actually very common among philosophers.) No harm was intended. (Just look at all the negative claims made about my God!) But you're correct, I was a little too harsh in my last post, that was actually unnesessary. May it be stricken from the record!
knowing is not the same as causing.........for example,if a doctor knows that sum1 is ogin to get cancer,he did not cause it!the signs are just there that it will hpn
What you percieved to be an attack was intended to be more along the lines of an inquiry. Baited? Into what? I'd be happy to hear why a book or belief system are more reliable forms of moral standard than my inner conscience...
The bible can supplement your conscience, it cannot replace your conscience. In fact, you should learn to rely upon your inner conscience more if you truly understand the bible. The fundamentalist way of thinking, which focuses upon strict literal adherance to ritual or law (such as do not eat pork, some laws are actually good), is one of the things that both Christ and The Buddha (lebowski) preached against (although it does appear that their existence has been used against what they taught). Gotta go get some drywall..
