rhutchin

Choice is always possible. It may be more limited or more difficult than a person might want but it is still there. Whether God is telling the truth as the Bible declares or is lying as Johnny Skeptic declares, the choice is still there.

Any person who participates in sexually immoral activities, whether hetero- or homosexual, chooses to do so and is fully accountable for those choices.

djrafikie

Well, as I'm glad about that. The parts of the bible that seem to be agaisnt homosexuality are arguable, I don't belive in god anyway.. that equates to a good 78/85% chance I will get away with my gay fornicating.

I like those odds!

If you wish to save me rutchin, it will involve a pint of thin bleach, a faulty plug socket, and a fork. I have put out this invite to all, feel free to check the "christian dies handling snake" thread for futher details.

rhutchin

Hope your numbers are correct. If not, it's just the risk you assume (as do all people as they make a choice).

rhutchin

Why is that?

Kinda following your biases into this aren't you?

Johnny Skeptic

No it isn't. You would not be able to choose to love God if he told lies. "As I said, Rhutchin must reasonably prove that lying is worse than the many atrocities that God has committed against mankind, but he cannot do that." Where is your reasonable proof?

God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus
4:11. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed. God ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. God was content to stand idly by and allow Christian nations to conquer the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion, an empire that was conquered by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property. During the U.S. Civil War, God was content to stand idly by while Christian killed Christian, and brother killed brother. God is willing that some people will perish, but if you have children, and they were in danger of drowning, you would not be willing that any of them perish. Why is that? If you have children, you would not be willing that any of them not hear the Gospel message. Why is that? I predict that as usual, you will refuse to answer those questions because you do not want to embarrass yourself. The undecided crowd are not impressed with your evasiveness. If God actually gives you wisdom, you should be able to answer my questions without embarrassing yourself. You would not be able to love a man who refused to try to save all of his children from drowning, so how have you been able to love a God who is willing that some people will perish? God deliberately withholds information that would cause some people to become Christians if they had the information. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept information that he would accept if he was aware of the information.

James 2:14-22 say "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"

James said that if you have food and refuse to feed a hungry person that you are vain, and that your faith is dead. Obviously, God is a hypocrite. He tells Christians that if they refuse to feed hungry people that they are vain and that their faith is dead, but he hypocritically has allowed millions of people, including millions of Christians, to die slow, painful deaths from starvation. If God does not want to feed people himself, he most certainly would not have told Christians to feed people. If feeding people is a good thing, then surely it is a good thing for humans AND for God. I am not aware of any legitimate purpose that is served by telling people to feed hungry people but refusing to feed people yourself. There is not any credible evidence that any amount of human effort could ever prevent all cases of starvation. Matthew 15:32-38 say “Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude? And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.” It is not likely that that story is true. Those people were hungry, not dying slow, painful deaths by starvation. It wouldn’t make any sense to feed some hungry people out of compassion, but allow other people to die from starvation. You would never allow your children to starve to death. Why is that?

In spite of all of the preceding evidence, for some strange reason you have chosen to love a monster like the God of the Bible. Will you please tell us how and why you have accomplished that? God kills people with hurricanes, and he is apathetic towards the tangible needs of humans. How does God and mankind benefit from this detestable behavior?

Oh no you don’t. The following is from my post #207:

Why should anyone conclude that there is risk from a book that is full of errors and contradictions? In your opinion, how credible would the Bible be if just a few errors and contradictions were reasonably proven?

Actually, from a Biblical perspective, all non-Christians are accountable for their choice to reject Christianity, and by some estimates over 96% of the people in the world are heterosexual.

Gamera

Wow, this is an intelligent post. Nothing like rants against a religious that upheld the concept of unconditional love for fellow humans. If that's a joke in your eyes, how sad.

Johnny Skeptic

This thread is about homosexuality. Gamera, isn't your position on homosexuality that you do not object to it if both partners love each other and are faithful to each other? If not, and you oppose all homosexuality on Biblical grounds, what evidence do you have that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves?

Christianity is in fact a joke because God deliberately withheld the Gospel message from hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing it, and because God is apathetic towards the tangible needs of mankind, such as deliberately allowing people to die slow, painful deaths from starvation, thereby making the Gospel message much less attractive to many people. No loving human parent would ever be apathetic towards the tangible needs of his or her children. Love is about caring about spiritual needs AND tangible needs, whether Godly love, or human love.

rhutchin

People make choices regardless of the truthfulness of the information they use to make those choices. Each individual is left to prove the information they have if they want to make a choice advantageous to them. If I am unable to prove to your satisfaction that the Bible is telling you the truth, then you will still make a choice based on that which you perceive to be the truth. If the Bible is true but you take it to be a lie, then you are likely to make bad choices with regard to your decisions about God.

I think it fair to say that God has not given me wisdom about that which He is doing. Certainly, God allows people to be born who are blind, deaf, and dumb. Would He act to prevent these things if people sought such things? I tend to think He would. Will God allow people to perish? Yes, but people can escape that fate by seeking God. For some reason, God has created people and given them the freedom to determine their eternal destiny. I do not know why God has done this. A person is free to take the Bible to be truth or to be a lie. As a consequence, some people will choose to participate in the temporary pleasures of immoral sexual activities rather than seek the eternal joy of heaven.

With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.

It is only by the grace of God that I love Him. I am sorry that you find Him detestable.

I am not convinced that the Bible has errors and contradictions. There are difficult passages and I cannot explain all of them. The risk results form the possibility that the Bible is telling the truth despite the problem passages.

Yep.

JPD

There is no demonstrable risk. A message this important could not afford to contain any errors or contradictions (the "difficult" passages excuse doesn't wash). Ergo: the risk is non-existent. It is a cobbled together affair that strives, through the efforts of apologists, to render itself useful.

rhutchin

Nice opinion. It does not remove the potential for the Bible to be the truth or the risk that people assume in not believing that truth.