Danya

According to the author below God does not love you and since you belong to him he can do what ever he wants with you. You have no right to question him.

This is how I also have interpreted the Bible which is why I am one of the evil atheists he refers to in his ravings. I only wish there was a way to respond to him. He obviously does not want feed back and you can see why.

<a href="http://www.hom.net/~angels/atheism.html" target="_blank">http://www.hom.net/~angels/atheism.html</a>

Grizzly

Hi Danya,

Thanks for the link! I really enjoyed the analogy that human beings are like cars and God is the Ford Motor company. So what if a few of us get used in crash tests! Who are we to complain.

It's sad to see people take this attitude about their lives.

Edited for clarity

[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

Danya

I like this part too...

On the main site this is his technical term for atheists whom he admits to targeting:
Conveniently the links for information about the author is missing. The newsboard which he tells you to visit does not exist as far as I can tell. One minute I get angry over this and the next I just think it's funny.


He says this over and over. We are all lying when we say we don't believe in god. We are really just trying to trick christians into asking questions and getting them to deny he exists.
It's a huge conspiracy don't you know.

And by the way god does not love you.

[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: Danya ]

[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: Danya ]</p>

SeaKayaker

David Gould, Grizzly, et alii:

Sorry for the long delay, but I have been thinking about this one.

Having considered this issue more fully, I think that it makes a false assumption: that either God operates on the basis of the human definition of justice or on some unknowable definition of justice. I think that our definitions of justice differ, since yours is independent of God whereas mine is dependent upon Him. I would like to think that, for me, there is no difference in the definition of justice between God and man. However, for the person who does not believe that God exists, the same would not be true. Seeing this, I realize that your definition of justice differs from God’s definition.

So, what does this mean for our discussion? It raises the issue of which definition of justice is the better. At this point, I will say that yours is better (more logical) for the atheist, and mine for the Christian (I realize that I am leaving out other theists, but they would likely either fit in with the Christian or have yet another definition of justice). Leaving that issue, though, we come to the conclusion in your argument, that Christians have as much to fear from a God who is not just by the human definition as you do. For now, my main point is that God’s definition of justice may differ from yours, but that does not mean that it is an unknowable void. Through His word, we can see how He acts. Sure, there are cases of His judgment (always on guilty people, I might add), but we can see that He has offered a way of redemption through His Son.

Does this make sense to you?

SeaKayaker

Koyaanisqatsi

So, once again, there's no difference.

Except, of course, that we atheists would never dream of requiring the sacrifice (read: death) of an innocent man to pay for other's crimes.

So, accordingly, Sea, the next time someone commits a sin in your presence (like cursing their mother or father, which, according to your god is a capital offense) you should immediately murder an innocent child in order to "pay" for the other person's sin.

After all, your god demands the sacrifice of an innocent in order to pay for the sins of the guilty, right? So you would just be fulfilling god's justice, you know, like those guys that hijacked those planes a while back?

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

SeaKayaker

Koyaanisqatsi,

There is a difference between your definition of justice and God’s.

How would this “pay” for the sin? Furthermore, as I believe that all people are sinful, finding an “innocent” child would take a while (it would be impossible). If the person is not innocent, then he cannot atone for another’s sin.

Because God is holy, He requires the punishment of sin (note: I said sin, not the sinner). He could just condemn us all to Hell, but He is also merciful. Therefore, he gave the sacrificial system to the Jews. The killing of the animal did not itself atone for the sin, but it was looking forward to Christ’s death on the cross (or it was supposed to be – the Jews eventually lost sight of this aspect of it, though). Because of Christ’s death and bearing the punishment of sin, for us today this sacrifice has already happened. There is no other sacrifice required; this person could find forgiveness through Christ’s atonement (if he seeks it there).

To claim to be fulfilling God’s justice is a bold, arrogant claim. Even if these people were fulfilling God’s justice, they will receive judgment for their actions (which, I think we can agree, were wrong).

SeaKayaker

Bill Snedden

How can any being "pay" for the sins of another?

Thomas Paine exposed the fallacy of this equivocation long ago:

Regards,

Bill Snedden

SeaKayaker

Bill Snedden,

Thanks for the reply.

I will concede that a person cannot pay for the sins of another person. I cannot die for your sins because I am guilty of sin myself. However, Christ was divine; He was man and God. Being perfect, he could take the sin of another (since He had none of his own), and being God he could take all the sin of the elect, not just one (since He endured His Father’s wrath), and being a man he could take man’s sin.

To start out, I cannot accept this as an internal criticism of Christianity. You are attempting to directly evaluate Christianity from your non-Christian presuppositions. This is fruitless. Using your method, I can declare that you are wrong because the Bible says so and then expect that to satisfy you. As a Christian, I cannot accept this critique. I think that we could argue for quite a while about whether this was just, but as that will probably not get us anywhere, we ought to address this issue first. Unless you use it to point out an internal inconsistency of Christianity, your points are useless.

SeaKayaker

Grizzly

Hi Seakayaker,

Hope your holidays were good to you.


For me, the crux of the matter is how can ANYONE (including Jesus) suffer for the sins of another and call it justice? It's not justice by human standards. We here on earth do not call this justice.

Which brings us back to the original question. Is God just and good. I argue that, by human standards, God is not just or good.

You seem to start out with the fact that God is just, and then define every action that God does as just. Order the killing of babies? If God said so, it must be just. Stone women for adultery and children for disobeying their parents? If God said so, then it must be just.

But this is not how justice is defined. The sounds that come out of our mouths only become words when we all agree on what that utterance is. So, IMO, to say that God is just is a misuse of the word.

And I really think that this is an internal inconsistancy of the Christian faith. God is not practicing what he preaches.

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, that's what I just pointed out. Ours is clearly superior.

That would be my question to you, actually. Sacrificing an innocent being to pay for another one's crimes is neither just nor remotely logical.

What a repulsive answer that still does not address the fact that only the person who commits a crime should be held accountable for that crime.

He requires the punishment of "sin?" How do you punish an abstract concept (an abstract concept that he allegedly created to begin with)?

He could also just forgive us.

Why just to the Jews? Doesn't god love and care for everyone? Oh, that's right, he doesn't, my mistake.

Yes it did, according to god in the OT. Are you claiming that you know better than god? Tsk, tsk.

Yeah, those stupid people. I wonder why they're god's chosen? Go figure.

That's pretty poetry, but of course, completely meaningless. It is not possible to "bear" the punishment for another person's sin; you can only be punished for committing your own crimes or else justice is not served.

Period.

So, to recap, you believe that a god who created all of existence the way it is, requires the death of an innocent man before he will grant salvation? I am god, I created everything the way it is, but before I can grant salvation I need the blood of an innocent man (my son/my self, no less). That's what I need. Blood. From an innocent man. I created everything and have the power to know instantly what is in the hearts and minds of all beings, but, in spite of that fact, I'm still going to have to have the blood of an innnocent man for no reason whatsoever. That's the kind of all knowing, all loving, all powerful being I am.

Right? I just want to make sure I get this right, because every time I have to spell this out like this my mind literally boggles at the thought that any grown man or woman could possibly believe such obvious, horrific nonsense.

Yeah, you'd think god would have realized that long ago and never even thought about going through with such a pointless, horrific plan of killing an innocent being as a necessary condition to granting something he can grant any damn time he wants to, precisely because his children--that he loves so much--would misunderstand his actions and use such actions to justify centuries of divisiveness, torture, and bloodshed.

Well, aparently it doesn't matter that we agree it was wrong, because according to god, those men are going to be rewarded for their actions with 72 virgins in paradise.

Oh, wait, which god are we talking about again?

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>