ZooMom

I'm sorry, Giz. I don't understand what you are saying. What threat has God made to me for when I die?

Gizmo

The hell thing ....? You know being cast into a burning pit of sulphur for all eternity and all that kinda stuff.

Rational BAC

All of that kinda stuff is ludicrous to most Christians.

If there is a hell ---there is no burning sulphur.

Hell is just separation from God===non-existance===what you all atheists want anyway.

So everybody gets exactly what they desire. Both Christians and atheists.

Such a deal. And everybody oh so happy.


Only God could have thought of that.

Gizmo

Apparently not - you thought of it too!

However, even if you interpret the the specifics of the threat differently, you are still agreeing that God will take away from me eternal existence. Why do you believe that you would enjoy eternal life and I would not? I certainly see even that much as a very serious threat.

Giz.

Edited to add : and non-existence is certainly not something I any living atheist desires or they would kill themselves immediately if they had not done it already!

rfwu

When I think about it, the best way to find a situation where God can be judged as "wrong" by his believers is to define what right and wrong is as believed by said believers.

Let's assume that a believer believes that God cannot do wrong. Could they specify that? Ok then, let's say that whatever God says is right will be right, as he is the source of all things right. Also, whatever God does will also be right.

Therefore, anything wrong will be whatever God says is wrong and whatever God will not do.

Going by those definitions, God will be declared wrong when he does something wrong that he says is wrong.

Of course, the fundies can always fall back on the "no true Scotsman" excuse by saying that he is not God but really the Devil in disguise trying to fool us! :down: :snooze:

ZooMom

Ah! Well, I suppose that depends on your POV.

Gizmo

Just to give one example of what I regard as a threat.

Seeing that from my reading of the bible, S & G were obliterated even more thoroughly than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this strikes me as threatening - is anybody seriously claiming they don't find this even a little threatening? Or maybe he was just joking? :rolling:

Giz.

Giz.

ZooMom

It's not a threat, really, Giz, it's a consequence of sin. Of wrongdoing. A life sentence in jail for murder is not a threat, it's a consequence of the crime.


Peace be with you.

Sandy

christ-on-a-stick

Hello Sandy -

But, would you torture your "child" for eternity as a "consequence" of disobedience?

Say, if you had a two-year-old (using that analogy based on the not having knowledge of good and evil thing) who stole cookies out of the cookie jar even when you SPECIFICALLY SAID NOT TO - would you think that locking them in the basement and torturing them until the end of time was an appropriate "consequence"?

*Edited to add: You speak of "consequences of sin". If you are a literalist (i.e. Adam & Eve, Original Sin) - how is that A&E could be punished for their transgression (disobedience) if they did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil?

rfwu

It is actually an artificial consequence, so it can still be interpreted as a threat.

It is exactly the same context a mugger saying, "I will kill you if you don't give me your money!"