Cross Examiner

Jinto et al.,

Jack Chick as evidence? I read the link. He actually has the devils and pitchforks etc. Like Dante before him; bon drame, mauvaise exégèse. Caricatures aside there is a science to exegesis. With all due respect to the well-intentioned Mr. Chick, a theologian and historian is required to seriously expound upon the doctrine of hell over any cartoonist.

A few scattered thoughts.

When the U.S was founded, jails were not created until they became necessary. The same goes for hell. It was not originally created until beings with free will actively chose evil.

You exhibit some familiarity with the Bible so I offer Hint #2: Aramaic is a figurative language that does not translate seemlessly into 21st century American English. Jesus spoke Aramaic.

God is no masochist; he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). He is a God of love yet is holy, an utterly holy and righteous judge whose nature requires justice if mercy is not accepted. He, by definition, as the greatest being has no oversight, by man or otherwise, and so justice and love/mercy are intrinsic to His nature and He shall judge rightly according to his nature as perfect in love and holiness. Shall not the judge of all the earth do right (Genesis 18:25)?

Hell is not fun but there are some mitigating factors. Repeatedly the Bible proclaims that each will also be judged according to his deeds. Consequently, even many conservative theologians like J.P Moreland believe that the separation from God is proportional to the life one leads (see Matthew 11:20-24).

Being in nature the absolute absence of God and all goodness attributed to Him, hell is the loss of everything, everything except the mind of the individual who has constantly rejected God at every step. The character of the inmate was not formed overnight or by one decision, but by thousands upon thousands of little decisions over the course of a lifetime, culminating in the final rejection of mercy rather than justice before natural death ensues. Hell is the logical consequence of such a character since light and dark, truth and error, submission and rebellion cannot coexist. If you've wanted separation from God and His ways all along in this natural, temporary life, what makes you think you'll really desire otherwise after it is over, forever?

"Hell is God's great compliment to the reality of human freedom and the dignity of human choice." G.K. Chesterton.

God. Is. Holy. The very nature of God requires distance from sin/error/imperfection, whether it be Jesus or the average inmate in hell as the source. However, since Jesus was God's Son and blameless, He did not remain apart eternally from God but was restored by God the Father so as to conquer death once and for all, an offer which is extended to all who trust and obey, the true hope that Christianity proclaims to the world, freely rejected or freely received.

The "pain" of hell is not physical torture but mental anguish from having chosen poorly; regret, contempt towards God, no remorse or self-incrimination though. How so? Envision rejecting the idea of the Christian God (quite a stretch personally eh?) all your life only to find out you were wrong, were confronted by a being of awesome glory, and were consequently going to eternally lose everything you thought that was good in your life (though you attributed such to randomness or of your own making) and that you now realize to be good in God and his people, lost, paradise lost. Mental anguish? You bet. You won't blame yourself though, you'll blame God. Remember Shawshank Redemption? Everyone in the joint is innocent ya know. I might add here that the evidence for belief in God and Christ is there and quite sufficient to myriad of brilliant minds across time and place. It is not a matter of intellect but of softness of heart and a willingness to seek evidence that is contrary to your own, current position. That is, if one remains hostile to the evidence, he will not see the merit of the evidence he has seen nor will he seek more. There are plenty of ways to find God, will you though?

Which begs the question; why not show Himself to me? Why do I need to go to Him, He's omnipotent, right? Can't He display Himself directly, personally to me, in an unavoidably real manner, to ensure that I avoid such a painful separation? Yes he can. And He did to a small percentage who consequently testified about such manifestations, many of which formed the basis of the Bible. It stands to reason that He would reveal Himself directly to some people, or how would we, who were not chosen to receive personal revelation, know of salvation otherwise?

So He can reveal Himself personally and physically, and He has to some, but will He do such for you though? Probably not. Is it free will if you are scared or coerced by God Almighty into believing in Him? Is there any trust or faith on your part? Any seeking whatsoever? Seekers always get rewarded. IMO, If you're done seeking then you've concluded based on the opening arguments alone. Dangerous. Also, the Bible is written, is complete for salvation and needs no more pages so you'll not likely get your own personal audience. God has sufficiently revealed Himself in the Bible among other avenues. Don't believe the Bible? You don't have to take such a stance. It is not required by all the evidence, only the evidence you've chosen to view. I'll bet you've fed a good deal on Biblical criticism and not enough on the Bible itself or even friendly analysis. You are what you read. If you devour Quentin Smith and Joe Campbell don't be surprised if you wake up an atheist the next day. Remember that you choose what you read though. Ever read a book at gunpoint?

I'll respond to your other questions later.

Regards,
BGiC

Jinto

Well why not? The guy's an idiot and an asshole, but that doesn't stop him from being right once in a while. And it was really only the list of bible verses I was interested in.

Aside from the fact that there is no biblical reference to when God created hell, doesn't it seem just slightly ludicrous to punish people with eternal torment for finite evil acts?

No duh. I'm not saying the english translation is perfect, but even in a poetic language, there are literal elements.

I think the term you're looking for is sadist, not masochist. God calls himself holy, as the Pharoh of egypt calls himself holy, but both are perfectly willing for their chosen people to conquer and enslave other cultures. God's idea of justice is 2 Kings 2:23. 42 children mauled by bears for nothing more than making fun of a blad guy. God could have used this opportunity to inform them that it's not nice to make fun of bald people. God could have sent them to their rooms without supper. But no, he killed them. All of them. Imagine if I ripped apart the flesh of fourty-two children over a stupid insult... how long do you think I would stay out of the electric chair? Apparently, the judge of all the Earth shall do NO right.

That blows your point out of the water, since God says that these cities have done mighty works, works that would have saved sodom had they been done there, and yet, even though they did good works and the sodomites didn't, they would be punished WORSE than sodom because they didn't believe. Thanks for that... you're making a habit of referring me to verses that actually refute your point.

Excuse me, but hell isn't just "seperation from God." Even if you deny the literal meaning of the verses provided by Chick, the point that they make more consistently than any other is "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Even figuratively, that pretty much blows any "hell is just seperation from God" argument right out of the water, since it makes the point that these people are being made to suffer. Forever, and ever, and ever... like those deamons with the pitchforks said: "shall I go on?" Even Hitler doesn't deserve that kind of treatment (not, of course, that he's gettting it, since he believed in Jesus). But just to make the point about how long the suffering is going on, consider this: Imagine an hourglass the size of the Earth, with grains of sand the size of a singe atom. Imagine that just one of these atoms falls through each year. When that hourglass finally empties itself, you will have just barely begun your eternity of torture. Actually, I don't think that I could stand existing for that long a time, no matter how pleasant it was. But would I have the option to simply stop existing? No. You keep on saying that heaven would be a bad place for me since it would be in the presence of a God I obviously don't like. Then what that says is, I have a choice between an eternity of torment for my "sins" (whatever those are... I don't believe that God's sense of morality is worth respecting, given his record), or an eternity of torment by submitting to this asshole of a God. It's pick your poison, and both of them are lethal.

I'll adress your confusion of disbelief with rejection some other time.

God. Is. Evil. The very nature of God requires him to rain his wrath down on anything which doesn't match his definition of perfect (which is of course, everything). He lashes out out of fear, that we might corrupt his holy goodness... reminds me of listening to a white supremacist... they were afraid that if they hung out with the mud people too much it would corrupt their "aryan purity." That you could mistake this for goodness suggests that you don't know what goodness is. Tell me, would you trust a doctor who couldn't stand to be around a sick patient, even if their ailment was a simple common cold? I most certainly wouldn't.

Jinto: Blah, blah... hey God, would you hurry up and kill me for real, I'm late for my appointment with nonexistence.

Again, you're confusing disbelief with rejection, and being stupid enough to contradict yourself. A moment ago you were saying that I wouldn't want to go to heaven anyway, since I've been rejecting God all my life, and now your saying that I'll be kicking myself because I don't get to go to heaven. Which is it?

By the way, you seem to have an interesting pattern... you say that to an infidel like myself would hate heaven and that hell isn't punishing (unless you actually think not going to heaven is a loss). Keep this up and pretty soon you'll be telling me that for an infidel like myself, hell is better than heaven, in which case I'm doing the right thing by presuming that your god doesn't exist.

Of course. Read here to find out why the fall and all subsequent "rebellion" against God was God's fault from the beginning.

Evidence for God and Christ: 2 billion people.
Non-fallacious evidence for God and Christ: none.

Evidence of blatant ad populum fallacies: priceless.

There are some things fallacies can't buy. For everything else, there's Christian Logic. Now accepted at institutes of worship everywhere.

Oh believe me, I've been seeking. So far I have accumulated 372,057 logical fallacies, 75,982 personal andecdotes, 519 distinct arguments, 42 headaches, 3 death threats, and not one scrap of actual evidence.

It also stands to reason that if he reveals himself to all people, then all people will be saved. This would also help to distinguish him from convincing lies, hallucinations, misinterpretation of experiences, false memories, and the emperor with no clothes on.

There is a tree in my front yard. It reveals itself personally and physically to everyone that passes by it. It has revealed itself personally and physically to me. Strangely, the people passing by have just as much free will as they did before they saw the tree.

This also gets to your persistent confusing of rejection and disbelief. You see, I can't possibly reject God in my current state because I don't believe he exists. I don't have free will to accept or reject God's offer when I have never even verified the existence of this God, and every one who claims to have done this is just as convincing as a diet pill salesman, and the miracles they're supposed to be able to perform (Mk. 16:17-18) are just as unreliable, if they even attempt them at all. I simply can't refuse an offer from someone I've never even met.

Further, you assume that actually meeting God would nessecarily cause me to accept his offer. Maybe... that pharoh sure looked ready to capitulate if God hadn't hardened his heart... but on the other hand, I'm not the pharoh, and if I met the biblical God, I would do everything in my power to repeat Lucifer's little experiment (read: rebellion), only in my case I'd be sure to do it right this time. After all, I don't feel okay about worshipping a confessed mass murderer. As you can see, knowing about God's existence doesn't stop people from rejecting God. Satan did it, many here would do it if indeed we found your God so that we could reject him. We are not afraid.

No actually, usually seekers come up empty. What planet are you on where seekers always get rewarded? I'm guessing there are a lot of scotsmen there....

So... you don't feel that the bible needs anything added to it for you to reach a conclusion... so did you stop reading after you finished the bible?

Nope. I got to Gen. 1:6 and realized it was full of shit (as this firmament, if it existed, would be quite an impediment to our space program.) Admittedly, I should have realized it was false when Gen. 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth," implying that Earth had been around since the beginning, but my mind was lazy that day.

Dude, if the bible is falsified by ANY of the evidence, then it is falsified. Period.

Hey, if that was true I might have converted to Christianity. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of reading the bible itself.

You probably won't. If you read the bible itself though... I think almost a third of the ex-Christians on this board deconverted when they actually got around to reading the bible.

Yes. I was trying to take my mind off the fact that there was a gun pointed at my head.

David M. Payne

Hi JB, well my point here was to look at just what God did directly and how that behavior reflects on humanity. To look at actions that he did himself, not actions through other people by causing them to do something. So far we have one positive example, Creation, and the rest of the examples we see are pretty much negative, esp the "Noah's Ark Problem." I find it interesting that the God of goodness has done so little of it himself, with most of his examples being a Badass God intent on punishing bad behavior. I guess this Abrahamic God only knows the stick in his direct actions, even though he created the carrot too.

This could be moved to GRD perhaps, but this thread does talk about his behavior directly, and that is key to how I view him. I think his behavior cataloged so far, is an argument for the non-belief of this God. It's hard to put the label on him/her/it as the God of Good, when he has done so much obvious evil himself.

David

Cross Examiner

Jinto, one long post coming right up, voici les details:

Is the key to just sentencing the duration of a crime or the severity of a crime? Can't a judge rightly sentence a man to life in prison who killed another man in the blink of an eye?

No duh? Some literal elements? What does that mean? Are the flames of hell "literal elements" of hell or figurative?

righto mate.

Well, we know Pharaoh out-and-out endorsed slavery. Who else is gonna build those temples, monuments and pyramids?

They were only children? Harmless name calling? Is that how it went down? Or is there a more careful exegesis here?

What does it say? These cities have done mighty works? You sure about that? Try here for a more careful exegesis.

It isn't? What is it then?

Yes! Absolutely my point! Figurative language aside, one thing is very clear. There will be conscious anguish in hell's denizens. What kind of anguish do you suppose? Physical? Hints #3-5: the resurrected body of Christ could not be destroyed. Fire always consumes combustible matter. In Aramaic, fire was often used as a symbol of God's judgment.

All this talk of fire and water. You Zoroastrian ? When another makes you angry, does that person make you suffer or does your contempt itself cause the anguish?

Hitler doesn't deserve eternal separation from God and His goodness? Hitler believed in Jesus? Is that all it takes, Jesus belief? Christians invariably produce fruits of the spirit. No gentleness, no loving kindness in Hitler, was there? Did he pray for those who cursed Him? What did Jesus mean when he said in Luke 6:46: "Why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not the things which I say?" So did Hitler really believe in Jesus unto life-changing salvation or did he use Jesus as a political means to an end in Christian Germany? It is good to note now that Hitler was also a devout of Nietzsche. What then shall we say?

Torture? Like in an iron maiden where you're physical body is constantly under duress? Interesting analogy, bad premise.

I also can't imagine an eternity as a (currently) finite being. I suspect I may change my mind though when I enter eternity.

Without a change of heart? Without regeneration? Heaven would be to you what a spotlight is to a mole. Not against you personally, but what does light and dark have in common? It doesn't have to be that way though.

You can't love God? Do you know God or do you just know the "atrocities" He allegedly committed? Do you have an interest in trying to clear the record or have you already rightly concluded that God is evil?

By all means.

You're still breathing, no?

God has fear of sin now? I thought he was omnipotent? Didn't Christ bear the fullness of sin upon Himself? Doesn't sound like fear to me, sounds like mercy and strength.

Mud people? Red and yellow, black and white they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world. Sing the song, it's fun.

How about a doctor that takes on the very sickness of the patient and only asks for simple trust in return? Perspective. Perspective.

Mud people? Now I'm stupid? Do you know me? Do you care to?

Simple. Before and after shots. Before meeting God? Quite content not to know or seek Him out. After meeting God? Different story. Yes, you'll be "kicking yourself," or, experiencing a great deal of regret in a less figurative sense.

Longing or contempt for heaven aside, in an unregenerate state you'd be a fish out of water in God's presence.


Hell is not "better" though it is more apropos for error, imperfection, rebellion.

Don't like argument by numbers or reference? Imagine the system that no one seriously believed or there were a few but they were all intellectual hacks? See the predicament that'd put Christianity in? Fortunately the exact opposite is true for Christianity. So it stands to reason that there is great reason. Take Zoroastrianism for example, it fits the aforementioned paradigm perfectly. Do you see many skeptics combatting the dangers of Zoroastrianism? No? But you have a section dedicated to Biblical Criticism? How about one against Mormon archaeology? No? A simple call to the Smithsonian puts that "discipline" to rest? I see how it is.


I read your link to the "distinct arguments." That's not indicative of your researching the Christian POV, is it?

If all people were saved that'd disprove the Biblical doctrine of man's free will. Ergo, many will not believe.


Can a tree reveal itself personally?


So seek more evidence. Do you suppose the evidence you've chosen to process so far may have anything to do with your current atheistic worldview?

You have free will to search more evidence to gain confidence in the existence of God? Got a particular hang-up? Make it known to someone who can help you answer it. The question of God's existence is that important.

Mark 16:17-18: who is supposed to be able to perfrom miracles?

You've never rejected an offer from someone you've never met? Ever get spam or junkmail? Yes, I know what you might then say but the problem is that the Bible is hardly junkmail. Still think it is? Upon what basis? What are your hang-ups with the Bible? You can also ask Biblical scholars for clarification, found easily on the www or otherwise. That's the beauty of the Internet, no excuses.

Not necessarily. A mind made up can attribute any phenomena to anything. Burning Bush? Bad pizza. Moses coulda done it if he was predisposed in such a way.

California gives three strikes to felons. God gave Pharaoh six plagues before irrevocably hardening his heart against accepting mercy. Should He have given seven, or eight? Would that have been more fair?

Best of luck on your little experiment.

Confessed? Mass murderer? You know that murder is unjustifiable homicide, right?

Not afraid? Why would you be? You do not know what justice and judgement is. This life is only the proving ground and you are currently under mercy, but falling into the hands of an angry God is bad. Your choice on how to proceed. Human. Culpability.

Regards,
BGiC

Jinto

First of all, I would like to point out some issues that you have neglected to comment on... specifically:

All this shows is that God doesn't care about the fact that he's hurting us, he does whatevfer the hell he likes. He could turn us all into sex-slaves and his actions would be moral, according to you. Morality dictates accountability of the creator to it's creations, not the other way around. Otherwise, you would be arguing that a mother can do whatever she likes wth her child, since it is her creation. So tell me, is a mother permitted to kill her child because it turned out to be a boy and she wanted a girl? If not, then you admit that you are not allowed to do with your creations as you please.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how us being God's creation gives him the moral right to do whatever the hell he wants with us.

And hey, what kind of a God calls a guy that sends his daughters out to be RAPED a "righteous man" anyway? I was hoping you'd touch on that one.

Still hoping...

As for your most recent post:

I admit the term is confusing... in this case I am using finite to express the severity of the crime. Even the most heinous crimes I am capable of comitting are finite in severity, consequently, a justice system can only offer a punishment of finite severity. But hell (or even eternal existence) is a punishment of infinite severity. What gives? (hint: it's not the human concept of justice).

Judging from Lk. 16:24 - "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame," I'd say literal. It is very difficult to imagine what use water would be for relieving mental anguish.

Paid labor perhaps? But even so, God apparently has no problem with the same thing (Ex. 21:2 - "If thou buy an hebrew servant...")

A very careful exegenesis, and one worthy of the finest lawyers. Of course, the whole thing is the equivalent of saying "Yes sir, he did murder 42 children for insulting one of his servants, but he was provoked by the fact that a lot of other people from the same town don't know about him/don't like him either. Besides, they weren't really children, they were adolescents. And there were a lot of them... no, I suppose that he could have just had his servant ignore them but... they didn't recognize his position. He has just finished building the new waterworks facility in the next town. Well, yes, they were just asking for him to prove who he says he was... but they were being disrespectful about it. Besides, what the hell is fifty adolescents doing out on the streets anyway... never mind that there are legitimate reasons for groups of that size. And besides, it's perfectly justified as per the contract with that town... what do you mean that contracts made under duress aren't valid?" This is typical of apologists... they do everything in their power to draw attention away from the main issue, which was that God killed fourty-two children for mocking his prophet, instead of doing something rational like simply having the bald head go up, thereby proving his authenticity. It's not at all dissimilar to lawyers who try to defend their clients by bringing up their bad childhood... emotionally, this is very effective, but it has no logical connection to the question of guilt. Fortunately, our justice system is smart enough to leave the question of sentencing in the hands of the (presumably) impartial judge, and not the juries who are easily swayed by emotions.

It took me a while to see what you were getting at... but yes, I did indeed misread that section. Although, I would appreciate it if you would point out errors in your own words rather than just referring me to an exegeneis site.

Still, I don't see how that supports your contention: God is punishing them worse than Sodom and Gemorrah because they didn't believe in Jesus Christ... not because of any unrightousness (at least, none mentioned). That doesn't seem to support the idea that people are punished based on their deeds.

It also raises a more serious conundrum: if God knew that Sodom and Gemorrah would have repented of their deeds if they had seen the same evidence of God that was allegedly given to Capernaum, then why didn't God give them that evidence? It's analogous to seeing a child who beats up other children, letting him continue to beat up other children, not telling him that it's not nice to beat up other children, and then out of the blue giving him two broken legs and a concussion for beating up other children. Remember... every single one of those people are now roasting eternally in hell for crimes they didn't know they were comitting.

Of course. They are roasting in a God-generated oven for crimes they didn't know they were comitting. By the way... it never says that the bodies themselves are burning. That's just silly. The most accurate description is a furnace of fire, which suggests that everyting around them is burning. Still intolerable... even the mild heat of the summer can become intolerable. Imagine being on the inside of an oven... ouch.

Yeah, yeah, the "no true Christian" defense. I should have seen it coming. I'll make two points:

1. Hitler does not deserve eternal torment of any kind. No one does.
2. Rom. 3:28

Stick yourself in an oven. I'm guessing that you wouldn't enjoy doing that.

Or do you mean that God will change it for you?

Uh... my POINT was that heaven would not be a nice place for me. You're agreeing with me.

Allegedly? We have his confession on record. But I thank you for acknowledging that "God is evil" is the right conclusion.

And no, I can't love a mass murderer. I can't love someone who considers Lot to be a righteous man. I can't love someone who likes the smell of burning flesh. I can't love someone who believes that women should submit themselves to their husbands. I can't love someone who has no sense of logic or morality. I can't love someone who demands to be worshipped. And I can't love someone who I can't see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. It is not within my capacity to do so. Nor would I want to if it was, since in doing so I would destroy every moral fiber left in my body, violate the very essence of my being, and I would spend the rest of my existence, to use a biblical phrase, "weeping and gnashing my teeth."

Apparently not omnipotent enough to exist in the presence of sin. We are not talking about Christ, we are talking about God. They were, by your apologetics, seperate entities at the moment of Christ's death... remember?

Deuteronomy 7:6 - For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Pretty unambiguous I'd say.

But God didn't take on the sickness of his "patients," Christ did. Again, they are not the same entity, and by your own admission were certainly seperate at the time of this event. By the way, if this is a perspective battle, then how about a man who sacrifices himself to himself in order to save us from a law he made himself? Too old? Then how about a doctor who sells a "cure" that apparently doesn't work at all (there is still sin here, or so we are told)? Or, of course, I could bring up the fact that prior to this "sacrifice," God tried to cure the patient by killing it (global flood, anyone?). I could go on, of course, but the point is that you have to ignore half the facts in order to put any kind of a good perspective on this.

I'm just quoting the bigot's I'm comparing God to... I personally don't hold any race to be above all people that are upon the face of the Earth, but don't let my sense of morality get in the way of worshipping a racist.

So God's going to change my personality so that I would actually feel regret about not having known a being that I consider evil during my mortal life? If I actually met a God after dying, my third question would be "If you don't want me in your heaven, and you're not going to make me an offer, then why are you even talking to me?" I have no interest in meeting someone who isn't going to relate to me anyway.

And in any case, if God is as described in the bible, then I don't care to be in his presence anyway. So if "hell" really were just seperation from God, I would certainly be unaffected. Unfortunately it isn't, and so for anyone who doesn't like your God, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And since I am an imperfect being (by your God's standards, which don't count for much), then hell is better for me. Or at least, that's what your attempt at apologetics sounds like. In which case I should avoid believing in God as much as possible so that I can go to hell. This task is made easier by the fact that the sole piece of evidence for his existence - the bible - is laughably absurd.

No, I don't like logical fallacies. And imagine a system where no one believed or there were a few but they were intellectual hacks. What chance do you think Christianity would have of winning support in such an environment? I'll give you the obvious answer: zero. The sole reason that Christianity continues to be accepted today is because there are a lot of other people who believe and that gives people who already have faith in the "2 billion people can't be wrong" defense to believe as well. Most peope don't stop to think how we know the stuff we know and so in general beliefs are perpetuated on the sole grounds that they are already common. The fact that people who have doubts or have denied your God's existence altogether are classified as immoral and/or not seeking, based on the assumption that Christianity is obvious, only serves to further discourage people who don't believe from revealing this fact to others or even admitting it themselves. Consequently, we have a whole bunch of people who are convinced that he emperor is wearing clothes because there are a whole bunch of other people who are convinced the emperor is wearing clothes and they can't all be wrong. The very fact that in the absence of a commonly held Christian belief Christianity would have very little support is just further evidence that there is no evidence for Christianity!

And by the way, you don't see how it is. If you saw how it is, then you might realize that people don't need to think that an idea has merit in order to write a page refuting it.

Not really, but I've never heard an argument that was not a variation of one of those arguments, so at the very least it's proof that Christians are not very original.

By the way, from now on I'll just number your arguments so that they're easier to deal with. The previous one was #121.

A: It does not contradict man's free will for all to be saved. God could simply make the offer clear to all. Then, it would be possible for all to be saved, though some might reject him. But their having evidence would not stop them from rejecting him.

B: It contradicts man's free will for him to be saved or rejected based on something he can't control (whether he believes in God or not... many people simply cannot believe in the absence of evidence).

C: What biblical doctrine of free will? That's not a biblical doctrine. Show me one place in the bible where it even suggests that man has free will.

Yes. It reveals itself personally and physically to everyone that passes by.

Do you suppose that the evidence you've chosen to process may have anything to do with your current theistic worldview? I've seen the evidence, and it is the same as the set of numbers that satisfy the equation n = 1/0.

You're supposing that my "failure" to find God is because I haven't looked at the evidence honestly or in the right frame of mind or because I haven't looked at the right evidence. Did you ever consider that it might be because there is no evidence to look at?

And you have free will to search for more evidence with which to falsify the existence of God. What's your hang-up with God not existing?

Mk. 16:17 - And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak in new tongues
16:18 - They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So... you're telling me that if you recieved an offer from someone that you've never even met that you could actually accept such an offer, with no way to even determine this person's true identity? Hmmm...

Jinto: *Writes Nigerian letter to Billy Graham is cool*

Did it ever occur to you that that phenomena works much better in reverse? After all, bad pizza doesn't cause burn't fingers, so that hypothesis can be readily disproven. However, I have never encountered a phenomena that a sufficiently convoluted explanation cannot attribute to a random God, especially when people use the apologist's God and not the God of the bible.

Excuuuuse me? God gave pharoh ZERO strikes. Read Ex. 7:13 again... that was BEFORE the first plauge. Giving Pharoh the chance to make up his mind in the beginning - that would have been fair. But even if it wasn't for that... do you think that the firstborn of egypt deserved to die? Had God accepted Pharoh's surrender when he was ready to give it (apparently, this was right after Aaron's snake-rod defeated the Pharoh's magician's snake-rods, given that God started hardening his heart THEN - again, READ Ex. 7:13), people would not have died. Pharoh might have deserved punishment... but his people had nothing to do with it. They shouldn't have been involved at ALL, much less because God wanted to show off. Again, READ Ex. 7:13 and note that this came BEFORE the first plauge - this is something the apologetics sites you're getting your material from instead of reading the bible itself keep missing: God hardened Pharoh's heart BEFORE any plauges happened.

Gee, thanks. I'm just glad that I won't have to do it in reality... I imagine that the battle would leave a lot of scorched Earth, no matter who won.

And name any book in the OT and I'll find you five instances of unjustifiable homicide in under five minutes. Usually multiple counts for each event.

Actually, I do know what justice is well enough to know that the idiots who wrote the bible didn't. I have enough judgment to know mine is superior to the God in the bible, and I have enough couage to spit in the face of an angry God. It's interesting that you should talk about human culpability like this whole system is somehow moral because God is running it... what about divine culpability? Is there any action that God could take that you would consider immoral? Or is this a case of "God is good, therefore any bible interpretation that suggests that God is not good must be wrong."?

Additionally, since you seem to be fond of quoting the standard apologetics instead of bible verses supporting your position, I have to ask you... have you ever actually read the bible? Or do you get all your impressions of the bible through the careful filters of apologists and priests?

Phew... that was a long post.

Jinto

BGiC... are you there?

Family Man

BGIC and Jinto --

I had a comment to make on part of what you're discussing here, but I felt it deserved a thread of it's own. You can find it here

Jinto

I will add that I've been doing some poking around the old Greek. Note that all descriptions of suffering in hell use words such as basanos (the rack or instrument of torture by which one is forced to divulge the truth, also torture), or odunao (to cause intense pain). Now, if the bible wanted to refer to emotional suffering, they would have used the word pathos, which is still used today to indicate emotional anguish. Why does BGiC suppose that they made a choice to use words referring to physical suffering and torture devices if they were talking about something better represented by pathos, hmm?

Or are you going to respond to this at all?

Mageth

A minor correction from earlier in the thread:

But in no way is this remark to infer that the Virgin Mary or the offspring of the Immaculate Conception, bear any guilt in this affair...

Note that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (an RC doctrine) refers to the conception of Mary, not of Jesus.

And a bit about God forsaking Jesus on the Cross. I read this, and the earlier passages from the Garden, as indicating that God abandoned the man half of the man-god Jesus, not that God "split". Note that God (or a part of god) could not die on the cross, unless one wishes to argue that God can die, that man can kill God. What died on the cross was a man, and only a man. Hence, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" God did not die for our sins. It seems God was not man enough to die himself, but instead found a scapegoat man to die for him. (and even then, the man-god was up and about, better than ever, less than 40 hours later, not the three days as BGiC claims).

Another point: if hell is separation from God as has been claimed, how could God (the Son) go there, for he (God) would be there?

As to BGiC's comment about Jesus' request in the Garden:

If there was another way God would've told Jesus at the prayer in the Garden of Gesthemene.

If Jesus was indeed God, then why would he need to ask?

Mageth

Oh, and God allegedly:

- stopped the sun, at Joshua's bequest.

- knocked down the Tower of Babel, in so doing confusing men's languages.

- dampened and dried a fleece at one point, IIRC.

- wrote some commandments on a couple of stone tablets.