ttruscott wrote:
Justin108 wrote:
ttruscott wrote:
Yes, their sins are as '
severe' but the reprobate's sins were to reject HIS salvation
Why is it inherently sinful to reject his salvation? Why is rejecting his unsupported claim inherently evil? I have repeatedly asked you this and you have failed to answer. What is it about skepticism that is inherently evil?
I remember you asking and I remember answering...maybe more than once if you really have repeatedly asked.
Yes and then I ask a follow-up question, and then you stop responding, forcing me to start over every time we have this discussion.
ttruscott wrote:
Christian sin is to be out of accord, out of step, contrary to or not in agreement with YHWH.
But how can God blame us for it when we have no reason to believe his claims? How can God make a claim, provide no support, then call us evil for not believing it?
ttruscott wrote:
To reject HIS claim to be Divine must entail declaring HE is a liar...pretty sinful, right?
No. If someone provides zero evidence of any of their radical claims, I see nothing evil about not believing the claim.
If three men made the same radical claim, providing no evidence... I call the first one a liar, and I am not sinful. I call the second one a liar, and I am not sinful. Yet I call the third one (YHWH) a liar, and suddenly I'm evil? So I accidentally guess that God is not telling the truth and that makes me evil? Or do you suggest we never call anyone a liar and believe everything anyone says just to be safe?
Your claim that not intrinsically knowing that YHWH is telling the truth is automatically evil requires some justification.
ttruscott wrote:
To know you are going to hell if HE does prove HE is GOD shows a very deep commitment to believing HE is evil
1. Believing someone is possibly insane or not telling the truth is not the same as believing someone is evil
2. It does not take a "commitment" to not believe a radical claim. I would not consider doubting a man who claims to have superpowers as a "commitment" to him not having superpowers. I just call that reasonable skepticism.
3. Why would it be so wrong to consider God a liar? If someone considers me a liar for making a claim that I have no evidence for, then I cannot blame them. I will certainly not kill them for it or send them to hell. God cannot make radical claims, refuse to provide any support and then blame those of us who do not believe him. Any deity who thinks this way is completely unreasonable.
ttruscott wrote:
To reject HIS claims without first ensuring you are safe from hell like the sinful elect did before they rejected HIM proves an antagonism to HIM and what HE stands for
It. does. not. Disbelief is not antagonism. Skepticism is not antagonism. I can doubt a claim without hating and being against anyone who makes this claim. If a man said he had superpowers and he would use it to stop ISIS, my disbelief of his claims does not mean I am antagonistic towards him. I would love for there to be a man with the power to stop ISIS, I just would not believe anyone who claims to have superpowers. This is
not an indication of my desires. I would be for anyone who stands for stopping ISIS. My disbelief in his claims that he can do it with his superpowers is not an indication that I am against what he stands for.
ttruscott wrote:
waaaay past the edge of a mere scepticism.
Explain what you mean by "past mere skepticism". Are you suggesting that whoever does not believe him automatically does so for reasons other than skepticism?
ttruscott wrote:
Then my initial interpretation remains accurate. God promises special legal privileges to those who marry him and those who marry him can commit a crime (sin) and get off while those who choose not to marry him will suffer for crimes of the same severity.
...
Why do people get to escape justice simply because they chose to marry god? And please don't respond with "oh this is such a strawman". If you disagree with my interpretation, explain where I got it wrong.
Your initial effort along these lines was that the sinful elect and the reprobate committed the same crimes...I spent part of post 31 explaining the difference.
If two crimes are equally severe, what does it matter if they are different crimes? If I blow up someone's car and you steal someone's car, then they are different crimes but they are equally severe. If the judge just lets you off because you're married to him, then it will be an injustice, regardless of whether our crimes are different. They still remain equally severe.
ttruscott wrote:Then in post 36 I agree that you had gotten it right. Now you go after me about this again like a honey badger on my boot...I've already agreed this is right!
But how is it just? PCE is your attempt to fix the moral inconsistencies of orthodox Christianity, yet the resulting religion is one where God
- rewards gullibility
- condemns reasonable skepticism
- let guilty people off for crimes just because they are married to him while simultaneously damning those who chose not to marry him
How is your God any better than the God of orthodox Christianity? How is he any more just? How is it justice to condemn someone as evil simply for not believing a claim? How is it justice to allow those in your good graces to escape justice?
ttruscott wrote:The only thing I disagree with is that you think this is unjust while I think that HIM providing the legal fulfillment of all legal requirements in His death is up to Him and perfectly acceptable.
Why does this legal fulfillment only apply to his "brides"? And since when is it justice to have anyone other than the guilty party take up punishment for a crime? If a man is to be put to death for murder, would it be justice if his brother offered to take his place?
ttruscott wrote:
Without trying to be definitive, His death paid for our release from our sentence of execution, eternal death.
Who did he pay with his death?
ttruscott wrote:When He promised us we would never face judgement for our sins He meant HE was willing to stand in our place and take that judgement Himself which He was allowed to do since our sins were against HIM.
If I "sin" against my mother, it would make absolutely no sense for her to punish herself in order to forgive me. If I was disobedient, my mother would either punish me or forgive me. If she were to ever punish herself in my stead, I would doubt her sanity. If she didn't want to spank me for my disobedience, she would simply let it go. It would make absolutely no sense if she started spanking herself instead. Your God seems to have a tendency to have a warped sense of justice that makes no sense. First he condemns people for reasonable skepticism, then he punishes himself like some kind of masochist instead of simply forgiving us.
