Why won't God convince atheists?

[Hatuey]

Many atheists are so for valid and defendable reasons. Why would a punishing deity choose not to make himself known to reasonable people who do not believe he exists?

A decent god would know how to convince decent people to believe and care for him as he cared for those decent people.

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

[PghPanther]

Atheist:
A. If god could talk to me then god exists.
B. god does not talk to me
C. Therefor god does not exist
Theists:
A. If god could talk to me then God exists.
B. I hear a voice. It is god's voice talking to me
C. Therefor god exists

I am yet to get back to you re your ansatisfactory response to some of my earlier postings.

However, the above caught my eye, as you have got it badly wrong.

What atheists have in fact been saying to you in this thread is :-

Atheist:
A. An infinitely powerful God could, by definition, turn up the volume and talk to me, and I have been listening.
B. Despite this, I have never heard God
C. Therefore, if God exists then I conclude that he does not in fact talk to me, and there is no credible evidence that he talks to anyone else either.


Your Theist conversation may well be the sort of thing that theists actually say, but is riddled with logical erors.

(A) is OK, but just to be clear, I would re-word as :-
(A) If it can be shown that God really does talk to me, as opposed to me believeing that he talks to me, then God exists.

(B) is not logically correct. The second sentence does not logically follow from the first. Just because someone 'hears' a voice, it does not follow that it is the voice of a God, or even less the voice of the particular God that the claimant believes in. The correct statement is:-
(B) I 'hear' a voice. I cannot know the origin of this voice, but will firstly assume that it is the voice of a God, and additionally assume that it is the God that I believe in.

Of course, (C) is now logically incorrect and no longer follows from (B).

The idea of whether a God turns up the volume or not inside the head of a person is irrelevant to justifying this God's existence..........

What would be more credible is if the content of this God's revelation was consistent to everyone who truly searches for this communication.

In the Christian context it would be such a revelation of communication from the Holy Spirit.

Yet the results we see is there are as many variations in a revelation from God as there are people who profess such a revelation and all in various levels of conflict with each other to the point where many are in heretical conflict with each other.

This is exactly what you would have with a person making the mistake of their conscious thoughts as a revelation. That would be normal to see such variation and conflict.

But an all powerful truth based revelation from a God that is "knocking at the door" of your heart?

There is no personal revelation from any supernatural being existential from your own thoughts.............and those who believe that are only deluding themselves into a level of comfort in their attempt to face reality that way.

Reality owes us nothing........ for what we can ask out of insecurity and fear and demand an answer for...........does not mean that answer has to exist beyond what we can deal with ourselves.

[tam]

Peace to you!

You know, I actually misunderstood the question, and wrote a post in response to what I thought was being asked. Here is the question actually asked of me by two posters:

I was just curious about what has convinced you that you are so bad, evil, stained (whatever word that should be used) that would make you OK with the idea of an innocent person paying the price for you.

and

What have you done to warrant an innocent man being nailed to a pole and left to die so horribly?

Took me a while to know how to respond to this. I am sure that some of you have heard the question or a variant of: If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys.

That question is based on false understanding of evolution. To answer it, you need to first explain evolution, and that can be a lengthy process. Similar to that, there are assumptions made that bring one to ask the above question asked of me. I will attempt to address one of those assumptions here as I have learned from my Lord. Although that is not accepted as evidence in this part of the forum, I believe that since the question I was asked is based upon a teaching in Christianity, and upon what is supposedly written in the bible, that I can at least use the bible to support the content of what I learned from my Lord. (if it does indeed support that content)


So... to the first assumption, that the 'level of badness' has anything to do with this issue:


Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ [Jesus] our Lord.

The level of badness of sin has no bearing on this issue. Because the wages of sin (no matter what kind or how bad) is death.

Nor is this a punishment, but a wage... a consequence... of sin. The wages of sin is death. Same as eating of the tree of knowing good (life) and bad (death) brought death as a consequence, not as a punishment.

"If you eat, you will die."

NOT,

"If you eat, I will kill you."

So the first question then becomes 'what makes you okay with the idea of an innocent person paying the price for you?'



Because that person offered to give His life that I may live (John 10:18 - No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.").

Because there was no other way for this to be done (Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." and Matthew 26:42 He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.").

And because this gift - that I do not deserve and have done nothing to earn - is not for me alone, but also for my children and my loved ones; and not them alone, but also others and their loved ones; and also all those Christ loves, and all those God loves.

And that is just not one of those gifts that you gives back. Or at least it is not one that I give back, but accept in gratitude and humility.



I think this answers the question asked at least as pertains to me. It may not satisfy the other concern posed:

Do you really think you've satisfied Clownboat's investigation into your stance? Can't you come up with something of substance to ease his discomfort in the obvious nature of your God? Ask the Holy Spirit. What would He have you reply so that Clownboat understands the necessity of such horrific torture as your God has allowed and might very well allow again in the future perhaps in eternal aspect?

I will address one concern from what I have understood from my Lord that I know some have:

God did not sacrifice Christ to himself. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6)

(I was about to say that the Jewish people understood this and would not have sacrificed a human being to God. But the Spirit stopped me because this is not entirely accurate. Human sacrifice is exactly what is being done when one 'stones' a sinner, simply because that is what one believes God demands and desires. Although there is much more that could be said on this point, at the moment, I digress...)


God sacrificed His Son - with that Son's agreement (just as Abraham would have had Isaac's agreement, even though nothing is written on that either way; but Isaac is a forerunner to Christ and Christ went willingly) - as a ransom to buy us back from DEATH - the one Adam sold us TO when he ate of the tree of knowing good (life) and bad (death). Death is the one who demanded life. Christ is the One who paid that price FOR us. Life... for life.

And that was the true meaning from the beginning of 'life for life'. That 'rule' never meant that God demanded we TAKE life in vengeance, or an eye or a tooth. But rather that we OFFER our own in amends for what we (or a loved one we wish to intercede on behalf of) TOOK. Had Israel understood this, it might have led them TO Christ, because that is what Christ DID for them, and us.

But Israel (as well as many other nations) used eye for eye to demand vengeance, in misunderstanding of the true meaning... due to hard-heartedness, and of course the lying pen of the scribes who themselves did not know the truth. I have learned this from my Lord. I understand that it is not evidence on this forum, and I would not expect anyone to take my word for that to begin with. But there is a precedent for this in what is written:

"Some Pharisees came to [Jesus], testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way"

Moses allowed the men to divorce their wives with a certificate of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts - but it was NOT what was TRUE from the beginning, from God.


That same hardness of hearts and lack of mercy (and lying pen of the scribes, so that the people were further misled into believing God demanded life for life), brought about demanding 'eye for eye' in vengeance. But Christ is the Truth of God, and Christ corrected that erroneous teaching, and Himself fulfilled the requirement of this law by GIVING His life in payment for ours. As well as by showing mercy and asking forgiveness for those who killed Him. He did not demand eye for eye against those who killed Him. He asked FORGIVENESS, and because HE did what was right, because He obeyed, HIS request is heard, and granted.


Now, in answer to all of what is written in the OT that people take issue with God demanding... if Israel (and all the other nations) could misunderstand this... then how big a leap is it to see how they misunderstood so many other things that they believed God wanted: kill their enemies; bash babies heads against rocks; fly into buildings and blow themselves and others up; stone or burn or torture sinners; etc, etc.


All of that serves DEATH. Not LIFE. Not God.



(And the torture of Christ was man's doing... suffering that God cut short when Christ called out to Him, because He could also not bear to see it any longer. )


If this response to the questions asked should be moved to another section of the forum, I of course understand and apologize if I have placed them where they should not be. I think the above uses reason and also what is written (which of course others may challenge) to support the content and answer the questions that are based also upon what is taught in Christianity and what is written.


May you have peace,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Clownboat]

Peace to you!

You know, I actually misunderstood the question, and wrote a post in response to what I thought was being asked. Here is the question actually asked of me by two posters:

I was just curious about what has convinced you that you are so bad, evil, stained (whatever word that should be used) that would make you OK with the idea of an innocent person paying the price for you.

and

What have you done to warrant an innocent man being nailed to a pole and left to die so horribly?

Took me a while to know how to respond to this. I am sure that some of you have heard the question or a variant of: If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys.

That question is based on false understanding of evolution. To answer it, you need to first explain evolution,

You are over thinking it then. No need to fully understand evolution to counter this nonsensical statement.

Think of it this way. If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans around?
To come from, does not require the other to vanish. No lesson on evolution needed.

Can you explain why you are OK with an innocent being tortured and killed because of things you have done? No great explanation needed, something more on the lines of explaining why we still have Europeans will do.

and that can be a lengthy process.

Keep it simple then. Perhaps, "I committed vehicular manslaughter", or "my religious beliefs tell me that I suffer from the sin of Adam, and if I'm not accepting of the medicine for this sin, I deserve eternal torture in hell".

Similar to that, there are assumptions made that bring one to ask the above question asked of me. I will attempt to address one of those assumptions here as I have learned from my Lord. Although that is not accepted as evidence in this part of the forum, I believe that since the question I was asked is based upon a teaching in Christianity, and upon what is supposedly written in the bible, that I can at least use the bible to support the content of what I learned from my Lord. (if it does indeed support that content)


So... to the first assumption, that the 'level of badness' has anything to do with this issue:


Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ [Jesus] our Lord.

The level of badness of sin has no bearing on this issue. Because the wages of sin (no matter what kind or how bad) is death.

Nor is this a punishment, but a wage... a consequence... of sin. The wages of sin is death. Same as eating of the tree of knowing good (life) and bad (death) brought death as a consequence, not as a punishment.

"If you eat, you will die."

NOT,

"If you eat, I will kill you."

So the first question then becomes 'what makes you okay with the idea of an innocent person paying the price for you?'



Because that person offered to give His life that I may live (John 10:18 - No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.").

Because there was no other way for this to be done (Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." and Matthew 26:42 He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.").

And because this gift - that I do not deserve and have done nothing to earn - is not for me alone, but also for my children and my loved ones; and not them alone, but also others and their loved ones; and also all those Christ loves, and all those God loves.

And that is just not one of those gifts that you gives back. Or at least it is not one that I give back, but accept in gratitude and humility.

Gratitude and humility. Lest's address gratitude. Why would you be grateful to have an innocent person tortured and killed? Did a religion convince you that you are sick and it just so happens to have the medicine, or perhaps, you have done something so evil that the idea of an innocent being tortured and killed for it seems OK. This is what I'm trying to get clarification on, because the idea of an innocent being tortured and killed should not be something we should celebrate nor be grateful about IMO.

God sacrificed His Son - with that Son's agreement (just as Abraham would have had Isaac's agreement, even though nothing is written on that either way; but Isaac is a forerunner to Christ and Christ went willingly) - as a ransom to buy us back from DEATH - the one Adam sold us TO when he ate of the tree of knowing good (life) and bad (death). Death is the one who demanded life. Christ is the One who paid that price FOR us. Life... for life.

Can I take this as admission that you are OK with an innocent being tortured and killed on your behalf due what your religion tells you? For whatever reason, you seem to have accepted this sickness, it would be no wonder you would take the medicine then.

Moses allowed the men to divorce their wives with a certificate of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts - but it was NOT what was TRUE from the beginning, from God.

You do realize don't you that Moses may have just been claiming to speak on behalf of a god so that his subjects would take him serious. Such things seemed very common back then, still to this day actually. Consider if you wanted to have the land that belonged to someone else. You could claim that your god is ordering the genocide. Perhaps even claim that said god is allowing his soldiers to keep the virgin girls for themselves for some additional incentive.
- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

That same hardness of hearts and lack of mercy (and lying pen of the scribes, so that the people were further misled into believing God demanded life for life), brought about demanding 'eye for eye' in vengeance. But Christ is the Truth of God, and Christ corrected that erroneous teaching, and Himself fulfilled the requirement of this law by GIVING His life in payment for ours. As well as by showing mercy and asking forgiveness for those who killed Him. He did not demand eye for eye against those who killed Him. He asked FORGIVENESS, and because HE did what was right, because He obeyed, HIS request is heard, and granted.

I have never done anything in my life that would justify me being OK with the torture and killing of an innocent. Perhaps if I once again bought the idea that I'm sick through Adam, then maybe I would be OK with something that I would hope we would all find appalling.

Now, in answer to all of what is written in the OT that people take issue with God demanding... if Israel (and all the other nations) could misunderstand this... then how big a leap is it to see how they misunderstood so many other things that they believed God wanted: kill their enemies; bash babies heads against rocks; fly into buildings and blow themselves and others up; stone or burn or torture sinners; etc, etc.

Once again, you highlight the dangers of listening to people whom claim to speak on behalf of god concepts. You are not immune to this.

All of that serves DEATH. Not LIFE. Not God.

I have done none of those things and don't find myself feeling like I deserve to die. Does all of this really stem from believing that Adam and Eve were real and sinned?

(And the torture of Christ was man's doing... suffering that God cut short when Christ called out to Him, because He could also not bear to see it any longer. )

Why are you grateful (your words) about this torture, suffering and dying? Why are you not appalled by the notion? Original sin, or you have done some truly horrible things (or something else entirely?).

Consider the Bible tale.
- God creates man and says he is perfect.
- Adam and Eve then sin and all of humanity is doomed because of it. Not so perfect.
God orders punishment (kicked out of the garden and pain in childbirth. Notice how mans pain only affected Adam while women to this day still suffer from childbirth).
- The punishment fails because some time later we see god killing of the entire planet with a flood, save 8 people. Now, did this punishment work?
- Nope. Years later, God can't even keep his priest in check. So he sends his innocent son to be tortured and killed on our behalf, because of what this Adam guy did?

And your grateful?
I'm curious to know if you are grateful due to buying the sickness that Christianity sells, or are you grateful due to things you have done in your life? I 'think' I know.

[Ancient of Years]

<snip>
God orders punishment (kicked out of the garden and pain in childbirth. Notice how mans pain only affected Adam while women to this day still suffer from childbirth).

Trivial quibble.

The punishment of having to bust ones posterior farming applied to all men, not just Adam. The primary audience of that portion of Genesis would have been farmers. Farming without much in the way of modern technology is still the fate of a good chunk of the world's population.

But like I said, trivial...

[Blastcat]

Peace to you!

You know, I actually misunderstood the question, and wrote a post in response to what I thought was being asked. Here is the question actually asked of me by two posters:

I was just curious about what has convinced you that you are so bad, evil, stained (whatever word that should be used) that would make you OK with the idea of an innocent person paying the price for you.

and

What have you done to warrant an innocent man being nailed to a pole and left to die so horribly?

So... to the first assumption, that the 'level of badness' has anything to do with this issue:


Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ [Jesus] our Lord.

The level of badness of sin has no bearing on this issue. Because the wages of sin (no matter what kind or how bad) is death.

So the smallest lie deserves death.. you have no measure stick for evil.. any smallest kind of "sin" is worthy of death. How utterly monstrous. Humans do WAY better in this regard. Humans ( at least some of us ) KNOW that people make mistakes and do bad things from time to time. We are NOT perfect beings, and it's INSANE to expect us to be perfect.

We humans ALSO know by experience that people also can LEARN to be more moral.. and it serves very little PURPOSE to immediately "damn" someone to DEATH for the slightest transgression. It's as if your god has NO IDEA how humans actually develop and grow as people.

Nor is this a punishment, but a wage... a consequence... of sin. The wages of sin is death. Same as eating of the tree of knowing good (life) and bad (death) brought death as a consequence, not as a punishment.

"If you eat, you will die."

NOT,

"If you eat, I will kill you."

Simply changing the word from PUNISHMENT to WAGE doesn't change the fact that it is VERY PUNISHING TO THE EXTREME to make someone die if he doesn't obey you.

You seem to COMPLETELY FORGET that you also believe that this god set that consequence UP in the first place. He sets a trap, and then the "trap" kills you , not him.. how.. Ridiculous to believe that your GOD has NOTHING to do with how nature was set up.. ( in the garden or out of it ).

God ( if this is what you believe ) CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND HOW IT ALL WORKS.. and is NOT responsible?... He has NOTHING to do now about how things work anymore?...

He sets a KILLING consequence, and somehow you don't see this as killing. This doesn't make any sense to me, Tam. Sorry.

Because there was no other way for this to be done

If you believe that your god is ALL powerful, to say that it could not have done something in a DIFFERENT way is ludicrously inconsistent. It can either do everything, or it can't. Which is it.. and how do you know what it can , and cannot do?

(Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." and Matthew 26:42 He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.").

Here you tell us about a god/man/son of god father.. asking the god father if he can have free will.. apparently, the god/son has no free will.. and does as he is told to do.. apparently. No reason is GIVEN for the order.. we don't know why an all powerful god HAS to do anything at all.. and we have NO idea why someone "has" to die in order for this god father thing TO SIMPLY FORGIVE A transgression.

Forgiving in HUMAN terms needs NO DEATH... this god of yours needs death to accomplish what a human can do with a kind thought. How insanely evil is this god.

And because this gift - that I do not deserve and have done nothing to earn - is not for me alone, but also for my children and my loved ones; and not them alone, but also others and their loved ones; and also all those Christ loves, and all those God loves.

I CANNOT understand how DEATH is supposed to be a "gift". What does the DEATH of someone GIVE to me that I already don't have or can't get for myself. KEEP YOUR LIFE, JESUS...

What a MASOCHISTIC SUICIDAL god you seem to worship.. this is NOT something that I could EVER endorse, or allow my CHILDREN to take as "virtuous". People who will KILL themselves JUST to OBEY their father or to somehow FORGIVE us for something are INSANE in my view. Not worthy of worship but of IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION.

Your god needs psychiatric help... he kills his son because he can't IMAGINE how to forgive people otherwise. The god father should be PUT IN JAIL for being a moral monster, and the son given intense THERAPY for wanting to go along with the father's murderous insanity.

To even THINK of a father IS LOVING by sending his son to be put to death by torture when this father can DO ANYTHING AT ALL.. and thus avoid that.. is not an idea that makes ANY sense to me.

And that is just not one of those gifts that you gives back. Or at least it is not one that I give back, but accept in gratitude and humility.

You want to GIVE THIS KIND OF SON KILLING MURDEROUS GIFT BACK TO US?....er.. maybe you should ask us if WE CONSIDER having son's put to death a "gift" at all.. Because as far as I'm concerned NO THANK YOU .

This is like Jesus.. willing to die simply because his father orders him to do it. And mind you, this is a FATHER who is ( according to your beliefs ) capable of creating all things in the universe, in any way shape of form he chooses.. and STILL can't figure out how to forgive people other than KILLING HIS OWN SON.

I can do MUCH better than that.. I can forgive people, and MEAN IT, and STICK TO IT.. and NOBODY HAS TO EVER DIE.

I don't have to "humbly" accept any INSANE DEATH SENTENCE because my father can't seem to forgive people you believe he created in the first place any other way.

Your all powerful god seems VERY LIMITED all of a sudden.

I think this answers the question asked at least as pertains to me.

These old god ideas are BIZARRE and barbaric. These beliefs were created at a time when MORALITY was based on DEATH, VENGEANCE and JEALOUSY.. we humans have done WAY better than this kind of monstrosity since then.

Usually NOBODY has to die anymore for doing bad things. We know better.. and SOME people DO get rehabilitated.. Not many, but some... and that is WORTH keeping them alive and NOT killing them... not having them.. "die" .

I will address one concern from what I have understood from my Lord that I know some have:

God did not sacrifice Christ to himself. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6)

KILLING HIS SON IS MERCY?.

I think MOST humans would think that ordering a son to die by way of TORTURE is NOT mercy at all. It's a weird idea MOST HUMANS would try their best to avoid, and stop whatever father from making such an evil act.

But your god.. isn't moral like humans are.. I think you might believe that your god IS MORE MORAL than humans, and maybe that's why having his son put to death by torture is a GOOD and MORAL GIFT to you, SIMPLY BECAUSE your told that your god HAS to be good, no matter WHAT he does.. including sending his son to be tortured to DEATH... That's a STRETCH of logic that I can't follow.

Maybe HITLER thought that getting rid of all the Jews in the world was a GOOD idea.. but we don't generally think so anymore. We don't AGREE with Mr. Hitler anymore... not many of us, anyway, and I don't agree with your god's kind of "morality" either. DO NOT kill Jews, and DO NOT kill your son.

I judge morality by what I know about the real world, and in the REAL world, people sending their kids away to be tortured to death are NOT good or moral.

I have NO idea how you can make such a HUGE exception for your god. And I HOPE that you don't think sending YOUR kids to torture is good or moral. I HOPE that you think sending your kids to die is EVIL and INSANELY SO.

And you seem to worship a god who does this.. Because your god had NO CHOICE.. but your god can do EVERYTHING.. and has no CHOICE ... odd.. very, very odd and very, very disturbing.

God sacrificed His Son - with that Son's agreement

But his son's agreement doesn't AT ALL mitigate the insanely horrible crime of sending your son to die by way of torture.

If someone wants to send their son to a torturous death AND the son agrees, then BOTH ARE INSANE.... They BOTH need to be stopped immediately, and BOTH taken care of.

I don't think his son HAD a choice in the matter.. so he agrees to suicide because his dad says so. I think they are BOTH insane, maybe in different ways.. but insane, nonetheless.

(And the torture of Christ was man's doing... suffering that God cut short when Christ called out to Him, because He could also not bear to see it any longer. )

No matter HOW I TRY.. that makes NO sense to me.

If your god sets things up that are GOING TO KILL SOMEONE.. it is guilty if the set up WORKS and then someone DIES.. The GOD is responsible for setting things up with these DEATH consequences and NOBODY else BUT the god is responsible for setting things up that way. Humans have NO SAY in the "wages"... in the "consequences".. THESE CONSEQUENCES were set up by the god.

GOD the father ORDERS HIS SON to DIE.. and GOD THE FATHER KNOWS FULL WELL ( being omniscient ) How and when his son will die. He knew FULL WELL that his son would be tortured.

GOD the father, being ALL POWERFUL could have changed this at ANY TIME. But allowed the torture to continue. God the father, according to your beliefs, sent his OWN son to be tortured on a cross and to die that way like a common criminal...

This is what GOD THE FATHER WANTED... a blink of the metaphorical eye from this "LOVING" father would have changed that .. as that god father could have arranged ANYTHING AT ALL.... so it's NOT consistent or reasonable to think that God the father had nothing to do with the son's torture. GOD THE FATHER SENT HIS SON TO BE TORTURED TO DEATH.

It's like a human father putting his baby on a highway and NOT being held responsible for his son's death by being run over. OF COURSE the father is COMPLETELY responsible.. and would be taken as either EVIL, or INSANE, or BOTH.. but NOBODY would call that child killing father "loving".

You think that the CARS are responsible for killing the child. NOT SO. The child should have NEVER BEEN PLACED IN HARMS WAY in the FIRST PLACE by this monstrous dad.

Your god father is the WORST kind of father imaginable, and you somehow reverse this by thinking it's the BEST kind of father. You call the worst kind of dad the best.. and that's not making much sense to me.

It seems that to you

Killing a son is a good loving thing to do.
Death is the ONLY way to forgive people.
It's ok to TORTURE people for a good cause.

DEATH AND TORTURE is a "gift" to you, and should be for everyone else, too.

well, I don't agree.. nothing new here.

I happen to view death and torture in a slightly NEGATIVE way.. not matter WHO perpetrates it or causes it to happen.

[tam]

[Replying to Hatuey]

Yeah I have a bad habit in doing that...................oops!

But I'm glad you see my point. So let me try here without the grammatical jigsaw.

So here's another one.

For the Christian the claim is salvation through Christ and Christ only. So if you raise a child as a Christian and they deny or reject such salvation and end up dying before you as a parent die and you know on their death bed your child never accepted Christ do you get to live the rest of your life in mental anguish knowing your child is burning in hell?

Or when you die and go to heaven where all tears are wiped away are you given a spiritual lobotomy from your memory on Earth of your child's existence so you aren't aware of their suffering in hell while you are in heaven?

Or does a window from heaven allow you to relish and rejoice in the pain of the damned as some interpret from scriptures?

Seems like a bad deal around for everyone saved or not.

It has occurred to me that an inspired and directed canon of scriptures into a Bible would have covered the bases in such nonsensical theological snafus if it had any divine guidance behind it.

As it is, the Christian faith has had centuries to put this all together and they still can't get a consistent or logical theology out of it all.

That is some revelation by some personal God there. Sounds just like if the stuff was all made up by superstitious ignorant humans to me.

The 'christian hell' is neither biblical, nor of love, nor of God and Christ, nor real.

Because what you state above is accurate: who in the world could have any peace in this world or the next, knowing that your loved ones are burning in hell? From what is written (even though the christian hell does not come from what is written, but rather what has been extrapolated from what is written, based on traditions of men and a lack of knowing God/love):

Noah acting in his faith saved his entire family.

Rahab acting in her faith saved her entire family.

The blood of the lamb on the doorposts in Egypt caused Death (the Destroyer) to pass over the entire house, saving everyone IN that house. Even the Egyptian houses if the Egyptians had exercised faith in Jah instead of in Pharaoh.


This is as my Lord has revealed to me (and not only to me of course). But these things that are written serve as examples so that anyone can see - as well as hear - that we do not have to be afraid for our loved ones. True, our loved ones may not all be in Christ, and so may not be Christian, and so may not rule with Him as king-priests in His Kingdom, but the sheep (from the sheep and the goats parable) are also not Christian, and they are invited into the Kingdom, as subjects of that Kingdom.



So... yeah... no hell. That would be, as you have said, a bad deal for everyone.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 482:

...
True, our loved ones may not all be in Christ, and so may not be Christian, and so may not rule with Him as king-priests in His Kingdom
...

Subject to the rule of Christians.

Like we need another theocracy.


But really, I respect your theological outlook for its inclusive attitude. Surely if there's a "loving" God, being loving'd be part of his character. To think he'd send folks to a "lake of fire" for "all eternity" just 'cause they didn't repent for stealin' a pack of Pop Rocks when they were in the third grade?

What kind of lovin' god even writes that'n down in the book of life?

Entry 2,000,000,015: Joey stole him a pack of Pop Rocks today, and never did tell he was sorry for it.

Determinitation: Hope that was a big ol' pack, 'cause he's got him an eternity in Hell left to eat 'em!


Bringing up past mistakes that ain't got nothin' to do with nothin'.

That ain't no god, that's a wife!

[Zzyzx]

.

Noah acting in his faith saved his entire family.

Rahab acting in her faith saved her entire family.

The blood of the lamb on the doorposts in Egypt caused Death (the Destroyer) to pass over the entire house, saving everyone IN that house. Even the Egyptian houses if the Egyptians had exercised faith in Jah instead of in Pharaoh.

There are stories that tell of such things. Can those stories be shown to be true accounts of actual events that really happened? Honestly? Without evasion? Without claiming "God told me" (which is meaningless in debate -- which is what we do here)?

[Dropship]

..What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

The Bible makes it clear that life is a TEST to find him, so the test would be invalid if he gave us all the answers..

[ttruscott]

...

What kind of lovin' god even writes that'n down in the book of life?

Entry 2,000,000,015: Joey stole him a pack of Pop Rocks today, and never did tell he was sorry for it.

Determinitation: Hope that was a big ol' pack, 'cause he's got him an eternity in Hell left to eat 'em!

...

You do know (because I've written it so many times) that many Christians reject this characterization of Christianity as a strawdog, all bark but no bite, no Christian truth in it at all. Of course I cannot dissuade you (apparently) from keeping on suggesting this bit says some thing about Christian foolishness which it would do but only to those few deluded Christians who might have been suckered into it. The thinking Christians that I know who know GOD do not accept any part of this characterization of Christianity.

Our silly simple sins do not cause us to be sinful in HIS eyes but are the result of our CHOOSING BY FREE WILL to be an evil sinner in HIS sight by rejecting HIM or HIS ways, either temporarily or permanently.