mike_decock

Lemme see if I have this straight:

1) God defines a standard
2) God creates us incapable of achieving a standard
3) God serves out infinite punishement for temporarily failing to live up to a standard we are incapable of achieving.

How can you call that justice?

It's like beating your dog for not being able to do your taxes.

-Mike...

tdekeyser

Irishbrutha,

Hell is described as eternal fire and pain. Correct me if I am wrong....

As far as using god as a moral base, I have to debate that. We have to have a 'moral sense' BEFORE we can adopt a god's moral ways.

How do you know you are worshipping a devil or a god? Your own discernment tells you so.

My discernment tell me that if you are invisible and do not show up to perform 'measureable' actions in human lives, then it is wrong to torture those who do not see/believe in you.

If god WAS everywhere, hence on camera, on CNN, on Discovery channel, or able to be summoned at will, then it may be a CRIME to not believe in Him.

It is even more of a CRIME to torture those who do not believe in you because you are not 'mesureable' or at least a fact that no one can deny.

If I told a group of peple that I have a little blue invisable alien on my shoulder, it would be wrong if I punched the one who did not believe me because he could not see it. Right?

emotional

From http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/sinner.htm :

It is quite clear that these people are worshipping the devil. Anyone who worships such a being as would consign his creations to eternal torture actually worships the devil. Eternal torture is the hallmark, the distinguishing sign of the embodiment of all that is bad -- the Devil. I reject Christianity for the devil-worship that it is.

parkdalian

In addition to God's existence, Hell itself and the criteria to go there is unverifiable and unproven, so it makes little sense to me that we should be punished for something, when we are unaware of the consequences.

Rhea

My first thought on this is always,

"It is so amazing to me how gleeful Christians are when they can delay getting to Heaven. You'd think if they really believed in it, they'd be bummed that they have to suffer some more before getting there. But they never are. Bizarre."

Or, thoughtful level gaze and, "It seems to me that a person who actually believes in heaven would be anxious to get there. How come you're not?"

NDEs, "god saved me", all that. Bizarre. Why are you so keen on not seeing God just yet? I thought that was the ultimate goal? The be-all and end-all? The release from this suffering world? Why are you acting as if you are reluctant to leave this suffering world? I just don't get it. I can only conclude they don't really believe in heaven.

Hey, you don't "lose" when it's a many-on-one. It's a necessary tactic of the church. It keeps them from having to answer YOUR questions, because the frenzy masks the lack of completion. You only "lose" when you are both satisfied that you have completed you thoughts and the other person hasn't heard a word you said.

Jamie_L

God didn't save her!

I have it on good authority from a host of Christians that God does not interfere with mortal affairs because:

a) It would provide proof of his existence, and proof denies faith, and god wants faith

AND

b) It would interfere with human free will.

So, obviously this friend of yours is misinformed.

Jamie

GunnerJ

You dan't have to say anything else. In the eyes of anyone using their rational faculties, you've won. If she says it's just for god to punish his children with infinate punishment, then it is just for you to punish children in the way you described. Otherwise, whe sets up a double standard, and is forced to either admit that God, by objective moral standards, is evil, or that God's morality is simply his subjective opinion backed up by omnipotence: "might makes right." Of course, sheep won't see this, so you'll have to make it explicit.

Irishbrutha

Logical fallcy of mere assertion. (where is that one anyway? I haven't heard that recently).

I'll give you that God's goodness is not what justifies His sending us to hell, I meant that as the arbiter of the moral system He is the judge who will determine that we are deserving of the punishment. And in my describing God's moral code as the standard I'm speaking of the doctrinal system which condemns some humans to hell. I'm simply establishing it's consistency. On another note, as I said in another post if you have an ethical problem with God sending people to hell from outside the system, you have to somehow provide me with a convincing reason to agree that your standard is in any way shape or form applicable to anyone other than you. In other words why should I even consider your moral principles since they are most likely simple "I don't like that" claims. Your aversion in no way entails justification for God's condemnation.


The lack of veridicality of an entity to the individual in no way entails the nonexistence of said entity. Just because I don't believe the moderator of this board exists doesn't mean he doesn't. And if I start cussing at you and calling your mother bad things I'm going to be penalized regardless of whether I knew the rules or not. As to our knowledge of the consequences, your lack of belief in the consequences is not a sufficient answer as to why God should spare you. You have most definitely heard of the consequences and unless you are the indigenous tribesman, have heard the whole plan in detail. Your epistemic rejection of the claims is not relevant to their application to you.

The crime is not in not believing Him. The crime is in breaking the moral standard that is written upon our hearts. Our being sent to hell is not causally related to our non-acceptance of Christ. If you could achieve God's moral standard apart from Christ, then you would receive heaven and avoid the punishment of hell. For sake of space I will not address the fact that Adam and Eve did have that option available to them. (remember guys I'm talking doctrinal consistency here; I'm not creating an offensive argument for why you should accept this doctrinal system). Suffice it to say that their choice landed humanity in the predicament of being unable to accept Christ. But God gave us that option (of being able to be redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection which justifies us and covers us with His righteousness, or achievement of the moral code) knowing that without it we would be unable to attain moral perfection. Lack of believing in Him is not the sin. The sin is the breaking of the moral code. And this does not require that you believe in God. Now I do think there are good reasons to believe in God. Your disagreement shows a difference in our epistemic apparati (is that right?). my having experienced him though gives my epistemic apparatus the upper hand though when we're discussing the existence of said being.

For illustration of what I'm talking about see the thread started by hinduwoman entitled, "My Proof for the Nonexistence of God" or something like that. I'm the last post I think. Anyway.

-Shaun

Rhea

Wow. Pretty arrogant assumption. Is everyone but you eye-poppingly stupid?

tdekeyser

Irishbrutha,

The moral code written on my heart STRONGLY tells me that God is wrong for His actions. I cannot escape this, hence how do I believe in a God I strongly know is evil?