Angra Mainyu

Those two arguments seem to contradict each other. According to the first, “If a person doesn't know the gospel or gods word, then they would not be able to do anything about their sin and would not be allowed entry into heaven”. Thus, all the inhabitants of the Americas before Columbus (purely for example) are being tortured, and will be tortured forever. That contradicts the argument that God made it possible for all to enter Heaven.

Actually, based on one of your arguments, the vast majority of humankind would go to Hell: “If a person is lied to about what they can do to enter heaven, then they would not know what to do about their sin and would not be allowed entry into heaven.” However, the vast majority of people do not subscribe to your version of Christianity (actually, most aren’t even Christians), so we would all go to Hell, if BG existed. Not that I’m particularly concerned. :devil3:

I second what JPD said about putting gay people, adulterers and rapists in the same category.

But that aside, you don’t seem to realize that a person can only lie if they knowingly tell falsehoods. Otherwise, they would be mistaken. For instance, some people claim that BG exists. While their claims are false, I wouldn’t say they’re all lying. In fact, I have the impression that many of them actually believe those claims.

rhutchin

Let’s make it, A person cannot get into heaven if the person has sinned.

No fault?? If a person has sinned, the person has sinned. Your argument is not that a person can burn in hell through no fault of their own but that a person cannot escape hell. Clearly, a person is at fault (he sins) and thereby cannot get into heaven. The problem comes when djrafikie decides that he will not tell people what is happening so that they may not know what sin is much less what it means and what they can do about it.

Good defense. It wasn’t my fault that I didn’t know how to escape hell. Unfortunately, a person is not in hell just because he did not know how to escape hell; he is in hell because he sinned and could not get into heaven. It could be that he knew how to escape and just didn't want to escape. There are people who do not want to spend eternity with a god who they despise.

No, dude. People cannot get into heaven if they sin. Punishment (exclusion from heaven) results from their sin. No blasphemy here. Just the straight truth.

I think you need to read the Bible. I am not sure that you even understand what a person does that prevents them from entering heaven. You need to go to church and learn some things.

No proof. The Bible does not speak to this issue. My thinking is that A/E were pretty smart people and quickly put one and one together and figured out that they were in the wrong.

Not judging; just being a fruit inspector. We both know that neither you nor I can forgive people for their sin against God. That transaction is between the person and God.

You need to read more. A/E knew the command of God: Do not eat the fruit. It is true that Eve was innocent and pure. It is not true that Eve was stupid.

JPD

If she was innocent, and therefore did not understand the difference between right and wrong, how could she possibly have known that disobeying God was wrong? She would have had to have not been innocent to understand the distinction.

JPD

You have said that all people have sinned. So......noone can get into heaven. But of course your God - and let's hope his arguments are in a better state than yours - forgives people, possibly, if he feels like it. Please just run through your loony theory about the list of the elect again. Just so we can get the full flavour of how just Biblegod is.

JPD

Knew? Like in the sense of knowledge you mean? But she was innocent wasn't she? How odd. You need to understand what you are reading before venturing further afield.

JPD

That probably isn't as good a recommendation as you think it might be...if the quality of your arguments is a product of the contents of the Bible, and a taste of the kind of logic employed, that is.

Thanks for varying the old "I am not sure you understand blah blah" a bit - its normally the pensees that you hoist but this makes for a refreshing towlette.

I like the possibility of church teaching "some things" - the sort of things that have no evidence going for them I suppose.

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.

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.

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 one of your own arguments against you and tell you that you might be making a bad decision. Now I ask you, which do you consider to be more immoral, lying, or the atrocities that I mentioned? 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. Logically, no loving, rational being ever does anything that he does not intend to benefit himself and/or someone else at present, or in the future. There is not any credible evidence that many of God’s actions and allowances benefit him or anyone else. What kind of God would deliberately withhold additional information from some people who would accept it if they were aware of it? Such detestable behavior could not possibly benefit God or those people in any way. What kind of God would allow some of his most devout and faithful followers to starve to death when he had food in abundance? Such detestable behavior could not possibly benefit God or those people in any way.

You are not a decent person. You have abandoned your principles and morals in God's case and endorsed atrocities that you would not accept if anyone other than God committed and allowed them. Under our legal system, many of God's actions and allowances are punishable by life in prison or death. Your buddy Pascal was not a decent person. If he were at this forum, he would tell you that you will go to hell because you are not a Roman Catholic. If you had been alive during your buddy John Calvin's time, I do not doubt that you would have endorsed his policy of having Christians killed who did not agree with his religious views. It is interesting to note that Calvin would have had Pascal murdered if he had known him. Calvin's group and Pascals' group would have had a war, which would have been only one of many wars that Christians have fought against each other.

How about some definitions for the words "atrocity", and "atrocious"? A web definition for the world "atrocity" is "the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane".

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. 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.

Since God commits sins according to his own standards, he is not in a position to fairly and morally criticize anyone else who commits sins. It is called hypocrisy, or didn't you know that? God is the most dangerous being in the world, and there is not anything that anyone can do about his evil ways.

Your God exists only on copies of copies of ancient texts. Neither you nor anyone else can ask God for any tangible necessity of life and be assured that you will receive it. Spritual benefits are subjective. It is an absurd notion that a loving God would always refuse to show up tangibly, in person, and have discussions with people, refuse to prevent hurricanes from killing people, and refuse to protect people from murderers and rapists.

rhutchin

There is no contradiction. We have--
1. God has made it possible for all to enter heaven.
2. If a person doesn't know the gospel or gods word, then they would not be able to do anything about their sin and would not be allowed entry into heaven.

God has made it possible for a person to enter heaven (Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world). If Angra Mainyu decides not to tell people this, then how will they know? Take one Angra Mainyu who begets Angra Mainyu Jr. who begets Angra Mainyu II, etc. Angra Mainyu doesn’t tell Angra Mainyu Jr. about Christ so Angra Mainyu Jr. doesn’t know to tell Angra Mainyu II. After several generations, we have the Angra Mainyu clan living in the Amazon, or maybe Chicago, who will be excluded from heaven for their sin and reside in hell for all eternity. Does Angra Mainyu really care?? My guess is that he doesn’t.

The Bible says that any sexual activity outside that which occurs between a man and a woman in marriage is sin. The gays, the adulterers, and the rapists sin.

Hmmm. To quote you, “a person can only lie if they knowingly tell falsehoods.” Hmmmm.

1. A person can only lie if they knowingly tell falsehoods.
2. A person does not know that X is false.
3. If a person tells people X, he is not lying.
4. X is true.

Example,

1. A person can only lie if they knowingly tell falsehoods.
2. A person does not know that USC lost to UCLA.
3. If a person tells people that USC beat UCLA, he is not lying.
4. USC beat UCLA.

I just don’t know about that logic.

Johnny Skeptic

But what is the Bible? The simple truth is that you don't have a clue which writings comprised the originals, how the originals were chosen, and how many times the originals might have been changed.

Then God won't be in heaven because he is a sinner according to his own rules. You won't be in heaven because you endorse God's many atrocities against mankind. 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 one of your own arguments against you and tell you that you might be making a bad decision. Now I ask you, which do you consider to be more immoral, lying, or the many atrocities that God has committed against mankind? You have abandoned your principles and morals in God's case and endorsed atrocities that you would never accept if anyone other than God committed and allowed them. Under our legal system, many of God's actions and allowances are punishable by life in prison or death.

rhutchin