rhutchin

The Bible is simply a book containing ancient writings. If a person purports to tell us what is written in the Bible, that person ought to read what is written in the Bible.

Interesting argument. It will be interesting to see if God accepts it when you stand before Him. Hope you have a plan B?

Johnny Skeptic

Not if it is God's intention to encourage as many people as possible to go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. That is obviously not God's intention, which is sufficient grounds for people who have principles and morals to reject him. God knows that skeptics need help interpreting the Bible, but he refuses to provide some of them with additional information that they would accept if they were aware of it. That is immoral and unfair. God knew that Christians needed help regarding the issue of slavery due to his failure to inspire the Bible writers to clearly oppose it, but since he is a sinner, he refused to help out, which is to be expected since God is provably quite apathetic and uncaring about humans.

Johnny Skeptic

But why do you assume that you know which writings comprised the originals?

JPD

You should see the plane we're building. Now the rice pudding goes...oh wait that's for oil. Its powered by our sense of moral outrage.

Johnny Skeptic

If you believed that God told lies, you would not be able to love him, and you would reject him. CHOICE WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED!!!!!!! In such a case, I would tell you “Interesting argument. It will be interesting to see if God accepts it when you stand before Him. Hope you have a plan B.” Now I ask you, which do you consider to be more immoral, lying, or the many atrocities that God has committed against mankind? What can we do except examine the evidence? The Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence clearly indicates that God is not the moral, loving, caring, compassionate being that the Bible says he is.

No man who has principles and morals is able to accept the God of the Bible. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5. God ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. The Bible does not clearly oppose slavery, but it ought to. God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout and faithful followers, and their children. God kills innocent animals. God allowed one million people to die of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians, in spite of the fact that he told Christians via James that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. This means that God is vain, and he is hypocrite. You have said that people who need help should ask God to help them, but surely you must know that God has always refused to help amputees, at least at far as we know. God frequently distributes tangible needs to those who are not in greatest need, including to some evil people who never become Christians, and frequently withholds tangible needs from people who are in greatest need, including some of his most devout followers. Ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, by genetics or by some other means, God has ensured that everyone must commit sins at least some of the time by passing a sinful nature on to succeeding generations.

The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "atrocious" as follows:

1: extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : BARBARIC

2: APPALLING, HORRIFYING <the atrocious weapons of modern war>

3 a : utterly revolting : ABOMINABLE <atrocious working conditions> b : of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>

Johnny: Those definitions pretty much describe God. You really do have a strange and questionable taste in Gods. If God were mentally incompetent, how would he act any differently than he acts now? The correct answer is, not any differently at all. Even Attila the Hun did not kill his own followers. No mentally competent being helps AND kills people, and allows them to starve to death.

Johnny Skeptic

Not if it is God's intention to encourage as many people as possible to go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. That is obviously not God's intention, which is sufficient grounds for people who have principles and morals to reject him. God knows that skeptics need help interpreting the Bible, but he refuses to provide some of them with additional information that they would accept if they were aware of it. Do you deny this? God knew that Christians needed help regarding interpreting what the Bible says about slavery because he inspired the writers to write about slavery in confusing terms, but since he has poor character, he refused to help out.

djrafikie

Yes, but rhutchin, you are missing my point. If the person has not been informed or heard the gospel, how can it be their fault? How can they possibly KNOW? also, you didn't get the reference to it making no sense. Altering that one word did not chnage the fact that it read like a lunatics babblings.

YES, but if that person has not heard the gospel, then it is not his fault, he just doesn't KNOW, so what can he do? Buggerall. To be quiet honest, I think if a person is generally good (which most people on the most basic level are) then I can't see how it would be fair that they would be hellbound just because of one or two bad acts that they didn't realise were defined as bad by a bible they had never seen or heard about.

First issue. I am a girl.

Second issue. Funnily enough most of my ideas about what is or is not acceptable are in line with the ten commandments. This is because I consider them to be perfectly reasonable and sensible (shock, horror) rather than because I believe in your god. But hey.

Third issue. It is not for me to tell or not to tell people what they should and should not do (although if someone is acting in an inherently BAD way, I do anyway). You may (or may not) be interested to know that I do in fact read to my little girl from the bible and teach her about it. I also teach her about other religions, but you can't argue that i haven't presented her will all of the facts. I would not tell her becoming a christian was wrong should she choose to do so when she is older.

Actually, given the number of hate filled xtians i have meet I would rather go to hell then be with them for eternity. Although, as it happens, from what I can work out of the bible, if it is true, then they won't be there anyway.

no, you are not repeating what jesus has said accurately. Yet you are claiming to do so. that is blashemy rhutchin.
On top of this, that is not exactly what you were saying.

In addition, I will reiterate once again that I am a girl.


I need to go to church and learn some things do I?
You know nothing about me or my background. I would have thought you would have deduced a few from my direct quote of part of my discussion with a minister (who is also a close friend) but no.. you go off on one again.

The completely innocent cannot sin. Eve was lied to and misled. A pensioner is not an idiot when a cowboy rips them off due to their trusting nature, but by your spurious reasoning they deserve none of our sympathy.

By the way, figuring that they were wrong AFTER the event? Haven't you just admitted that they therefore could not have known they were wrong before eating the fruit of knowledge?


Get your head out of your ass. You have no right to "inspect people", you also lack the wisdom required.


Point missed. Eve had NEVER been lied to. A very young child does not understand the difference between a lie and the truth when they are told something, because the child has not yet experienced enough to be able to do so. A very young child will trust almost anyone. If someone older (read, in possesion of more knowledge regarding the reality of the world) told a very young child to do something wrong, and I KNEW that an adult had done this, I would gently explain that some people are not to be trusted, and probably slap the adult.

You apparently would hit the child and ignore the situation.

NOW do you get the point?

Angra Mainyu

No, that person would be in Hell because BG would send them there.

No fault could justify eternal torture. Further, djrafikie has already explained clearly that those people did not know what actions would be considered "sin" and punished by eternal torture, to there was no fault on their part.

But there's even more. In fact, if BG existed, He’d set standards that are impossible to meet, since everyone would unavoidable be a sinner.

Thus, being a person would imply becoming a sinner. But BG would be the one who’d have created humans in a way that leads to inevitable sin. It’d only be His fault.

Not that it would matter, since BG’s actions would make Him far, far worse than any possible human “sinner”, regardless of the latter’s responsibility.

As for people not wanting to spend eternity with a God whom they despise, the fact is that some those people certainly don’t want to spend eternity in Hell, and despise God as they could despise Darth Vader – as one could despise a fictional character. Others simply have never heard of BG.

Punishment (eternal torture in Hell) would result from BG’s decision to create Hell and create humans (and define “sin”) in a way that would make sin unavoidable for them.

Consider the people who never heard the Gospel. If BG were real, those people would have no way of escaping BG’s punishment: they would have been created to be sinners, and would have been sent to Hell for that “reason”, with no chance of escaping.

Frankly, I don’t see how BG’s worshippers could excuse the infliction of eternal torment on a person (actually, billions at least), even if they consider those people to be responsible.

Also, and sorry to insist, people who believe in BG wouldn’t go to Hell, even though they too would sin, so the eternal torture for unbelievers would seem to be punishment for not believing, which could not be their fault.

As for the eternal punishment for gay people, I'm not sure about your take on that. Will gay people who believe in BG be sent to Hell?

3. Hence (by 2.), it would not be possible for them to enter Heaven and avoid eternal torture. That contradicts 1.

1) BG would not have made it possible for the people who lived in the Americas before European colonization to enter Heaven and avoid eternal torment.
2) BG would not have made it possible for Angra Mainyu II to avoid eternal torment, since the required information would not be available to him.
3) Furthermore, BG would not even had made it possible for Angra Mainyu to enter Heaven and avoid eternal punishment. Indeed, it is not possible for me to “choose to believe” in BG: Based on the information available to me, I conclude that BG, Qurangod, Baal and Santa Claus do not exist. I cannot choose to believe any of them exist.
4) As explained previously on this post, no one would go to Hell for their sin, but because of BG’s evil deeds.

Does Angra Mainyu really care?

Well, you got that right. :devil3: Since BG does not exist, of course I don’t care about the “threat” that He would send me or anyone else to Hell.

On the other hand, BG’s followers could be more of a threat, if they decide to act upon the

That’s a non-sequitur, but certainly not the argument I made. That’s so obvious that I’m surprised by your reply.


My point is: even if X is false, if a person tells people X believing X is true, then said person is not lying. He or she is mistaken. This is pretty obvious, and is a reply to your claim that it is a lie to tell some people that they will not have to face Biblegod.

It is definitely not a lie, and in this case, it’s not false, either, since clearly BG doesn’t exist. But that’s another point.

In other words, I argue:

1) Biblegod doesn’t exist, and gay people will not go to Hell.
2) 1) is true, but if 1) were false, I and others would not be lying about it, but mistaken.

Johnny Skeptic

Wanting has nothing to do with it. If you believed that God told lies, you would not be able to love him, and you would reject him. CHOICE WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED!!!!!!! In such a case, I would use your own argument against you and tell you “Interesting argument. It will be interesting to see if God accepts it when you stand before Him. Hope you have a plan B.” Now I ask you, which do you consider to be more immoral, lying, or the many atrocities that God has committed against mankind? Why do you always conveniently refuse to answer that question? What can we do except examine the evidence? The Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence clearly indicates that God is not the moral, loving, caring, compassionate being that the Bible says he is.

Since most skeptics want to know the risks that are involved regarding the existence of harmful microorganisms, if there are risks involved regarding rejecting the Bible, most skeptics want to know about it, in fact, much more so than they want to know about the risks that are involved regarding the existence of harmful microorganisms. If God exists, he has deliberately withheld additional evidence regarding his existence, and the existence of hell, in which case people who have principles and morals have no choice but to reject him. Any loving God would go to much greater lengths to prove that he exists than God has gone to. Such detestable behavior on God's part most certainly does not benefit him or anyone else in any way. People who have morals and principles want to worship a God who is looking out for their best interests, not his own best interests.

By the way, why do you assume that all of the Bible is the word of God? God might not have ever said anything about homosexuality. That is one of the problems that are involved when God chooses to speak to mankind via human proxies instead of speaking to mankind himself. We don't really know what Jesus said, only what some people said that he said. None of the Gospels writers ever claimed to have seen Jesus perform a miracle, and they never revealed who their sources were. The supernatural claims in the Bible do not meet the modern standards of historiographical research.

rhutchin

For some people it does. There are people who have said that they do not want to spend eternity with Biblegod. Do you??

Of course, this is still a choice. Many factors can influence that which you choose. You have identified one of them.

You and I disagree on the atrocities issue. If God is not the moral, loving, caring, compassionate being that the Bible says he is, then what do you think He will do to people when they stand before Him?