choose me with free will..or else...

[sin_is_fun]

Gods law says "You have choice.You have freewill.But CHOOSE ME WITH FREE WILL. Or else.....". Now how is this free will?This looks like hobson's choice.

[keltzkroz]

I guess the question should be, why does Christianity teach everlasting torment? Would not annihilation be better?

I have no knowledge of what hell is like, and is does not bother me if some people teach that hell is full of fire and brimstone, or annihilation, or cute cuddly puppies . All I know is that I don't have to experience it first hand in order for me not to like it, just like drowning, or being eaten by a particularly large fish.

[Scrotum]

I like brimstone, if you have a big steak, you can use it for good...


How large fish are we talking about ? I dont really worry about hell, because for me, it does not exist. Nor does it matter, because if Harvey and the boys would be right, and God would exist, he would be forced to give me full access to Heaven, as i am not a sinner, and a good person..

[sin_is_fun]

I have no knowledge of why hell exists in the first place because I did not build it.

I thought Bible explains clearly who built the hell and why it exists.

I don't know if this is a good analogy, but why does society make laws which some people will eventually break and get punished for? Is it bad to make prisons then?

It is not bad to make prisons.But it is bad to make eternal torturing places.That is not equal to prison.That is equal to torture chambers.Building those sort of places is certainly bad.Further telling people 'if you dont love me ,I will send you there' is not that good an argument.

Am I right in assuming that you were referring to God when you wrote 'escaping from responsibility'? Just so I can understand, what is this responsibility that you were referring to?

You earlier said God is not responsible for sending people to hell.Thats what I refered to.

God may have 'built' hell, but He definitely did not put us there (at least that is what most Christians believe).

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I was laughing after reading that God uses "light form of pressure,threat and intimidation" to make people love him but how that isnt coercion.

If you consult the dictionary, I think that you will find that the term "coercion" requires some sort of force. God forces no one to love him, therefore, does not coerce.

That is, unless you are prepared to argue with the words commonly accepted dictoral meaning.

BTW is burning people forever in eternal hell 'light form of punishment?

I never said that.

But to describe the Bible's evangelicism as "pressure, threat, and intimidation" is taking it a bit far, IMO. The Bible merely urges one to follow Gods will, and presents the possible punishment for failing to do so.

This is what I meant by "a lighter form of pressure, threat, and intimidation".

when a robber shows a gun and tells "Give your money or else you die" we can either comply or disobey.But is that a choice?Is that free will? 'Free' will has a free in it.If 'light threats,intimidations and pressure' like eternal hell are used to obtain consent it aint free will.That too love cannot be obtained by threats.

I wonder, what would you suggest God do?

Should he give us no incintive to be good, and grant both sinners AND non-sinners eternal life? If you will go to heaven regardless of how you conduct yourself, how many people do you think would bother being good?

God loved us enough to grant free will. However, to ensure that the world does not fall completely into chaos, he grants certain privilidges to those who choose to follow his commandments.

But all the same, you may still choose not to follow the commandments. Likewise, the person may choose to disobey the robber, and accept the consequence of death. This is an unfair example however, becuase the consequence is not justified as God's is.

Failing in an exam is peanuts compared to eternal hell.Giving low grades and burning in eternal hell arent comparable.

How so? They are the exact same principle.

Do the homework. Pass.
Don't do the homework. Fail
Obey Gods commandments. Live.
Don't obey God's commandments. Die.

You seem to be running from the fact that although we may choose what we want, some of our choices may bear undesirable consequences. This is a reality we all must eventually face.

You may not think so.But all these people waged wars with holy books in their hands calling people who kept quiet as cowards.

And that makes them right? I think it makes them decieved.

But truth be told, most of those wars and attrocities really had nothing to do with religion. They were fought over material things such as resources, land, and power. The perpretrators merely twisted around their religious teachings to justify their acts.

And let's not forget- the same may be said for athiest wars. How many attrocities have been waged in the name of natural selection, and other related beliefs?

Not only religion but anything,any philsophy if used in 'right way' can help people stick to good morals.Humanism too if practiced in 'right way' will benefit society.

I am aware of that. But it is my belief that religion used the 'right way' can be more effective than other philosophies used in the 'right way'.

care to share that evidence which you have seen ?

I have all ready done so, but shall be happy to do again.

Studies into human nature and our primal instincts reveal that we are much like less-developed animals, in that our foremost goal is the furthering of one's self. You may apply this belief to almost all human actions- we rarely help others when there is no benefit in it for ourselves.

Lets look at the Gulf War for example. Great how all those countries banded together to protect poor little Kuwait, right? Not exactly. Would anyone have really cared if Kuwait was an un-prosperous African nation, the like of which we commonly ignore when in need? The war was mostly over oil. The same can probably be said for our current war.

We don't genuinely care for the countries well-being. Most of our concern lies in our precious oil prices. Self interest.

It is not bad to make prisons.But it is bad to make eternal torturing places.That is not equal to prison.That is equal to torture chambers.Building those sort of places is certainly bad.Further telling people 'if you dont love me ,I will send you there' is not that good an argument.

One is harsher than the other, true. However, both rely on the same principle.

Don't commit a crime, or you will go to prison. Don't disobey God, or you will go to hell. They are both intended to keep us under control. If a consequence as horrible as eternal damnation is required to make people half-way decent, then so be it.

[keltzkroz]

It is not bad to make prisons.But it is bad to make eternal torturing places.That is not equal to prison.That is equal to torture chambers.Building those sort of places is certainly bad.

Its a point of view, a personal preference, no different than saying that torture chambers are ok. It all depends on the preference of society and the people in it. I might share your view that torture is bad, but no one is forcing us to stay in the line going towards the 'torture chamber'.

Further telling people 'if you dont love me ,I will send you there' is not that good an argument.

Most Christians believe that He does not send us there. We are on our way there. Like I said in one of my previous posts, for Christians, we are all already in the bus headed towards one 'undesirable' destination. God is simply saying that He has a bus going the other way, and you can transfer if you want.

You earlier said God is not responsible for sending people to hell.Thats what I refered to.

I'm still not clear on what you mean. Who is escaping what responsibility?

[sin_is_fun]

Its a point of view, a personal preference, no different than saying that torture chambers are ok. It all depends on the preference of society and the people in it. I might share your view that torture is bad, but no one is forcing us to stay in the line going towards the 'torture chamber'.

If torture is bad,the person who conceived the idea of building a torture chamber must not be that good.Yes or no?

After building a torture chamber next thing he says is "Either love me or go there".What choice is involved here?How can we say people who love God ,do so by their own choice and not because of the fear of turture chamber?

Most Christians believe that He does not send us there. We are on our way there. Like I said in one of my previous posts, for Christians, we are all already in the bus headed towards one 'undesirable' destination. God is simply saying that He has a bus going the other way, and you can transfer if you want.

This is what I called as escaping from responsibility.God made the torture chamber.On judgment day he sends people to torture chamber.After doing all this if you people say 'he does not send us there' it is escaping responsibility.God who built the torture chamber is responsible for sending people there.

I give an example:
If a dictator built a gas chamber and told people "Either join my party or die",will you call that as giving free will to those people?If people choose not to join, then the dictator will throw them in gas chamber.If after doing so he says 'I did not send them there.They chose it by themselves' will you agree to his logic?Will you call the people who joined the dictators party by fear of gas chamber as having genuine love towards the dictator?
Who is responsible for the sufferings of these people?Dictator or people themselves?

[keltzkroz]

If torture is bad,the person who conceived the idea of building a torture chamber must not be that good.Yes or no?

After building a torture chamber next thing he says is "Either love me or go there".What choice is involved here?How can we say people who love God ,do so by their own choice and not because of the fear of turture chamber?

I'm sure I don't want to feel suffering and torture (or anyone to feel suffering and torture), but can you tell me why its bad? Perhaps you are caught up with the notion that 'it hurts that is why its bad'? If I have a choice between a blue shirt and a white shirt, can you tell me which is bad? Just like having a choice between having vanilla or chocolate flavored ice cream. You make choices in life and deal with the consequences.

This is what I called as escaping from responsibility.God made the torture chamber.On judgment day he sends people to torture chamber.After doing all this if you people say 'he does not send us there' it is escaping responsibility.God who built the torture chamber is responsible for sending people there.

I give an example:
If a dictator built a gas chamber and told people "Either join my party or die",will you call that as giving free will to those people?If people choose not to join, then the dictator will throw them in gas chamber.If after doing so he says 'I did not send them there.They chose it by themselves' will you agree to his logic?Will you call the people who joined the dictators party by fear of gas chamber as having genuine love towards the dictator?
Who is responsible for the sufferings of these people?Dictator or people themselves?

Again, we are already headed there (ya I know, tough luck). Actually, using the example you provided (sort of), a new president just came into power and asks political prisoners from the previous regime if they want to get out of prison. He does not want to force anyone to get out of prison, even if he knows that its for their own good. That is choice.

[sin_is_fun]

I'm sure I don't want to feel suffering and torture (or anyone to feel suffering and torture), but can you tell me why its bad? Perhaps you are caught up with the notion that 'it hurts that is why its bad'?

If you ask why suffering and torture is bad what answer can I give?As you said its bad because it's painful to people.

If I have a choice between a blue shirt and a white shirt, can you tell me which is bad? Just like having a choice between having vanilla or chocolate flavored ice cream. You make choices in life and deal with the consequences.

so you compare hell with chocolate ice cream and blue shirt.But here the difference is its god who created hell and casts people in there.And hell is not chocolate ice cream.

Any self respecting government will not give some choices to people like suicide,right to use drugs,not to get educated etc.

Again, we are already headed there (ya I know, tough luck). Actually, using the example you provided (sort of), a new president just came into power and asks political prisoners from the previous regime if they want to get out of prison. He does not want to force anyone to get out of prison, even if he knows that its for their own good. That is choice.

He doesnt ask them 'do you want to come out'.He says 'If you love me you can come out.Otherwise you will be tortured'.

Is this fair?Does this happen in any democracy?

Further what about the people who are born after the new president comes to power?will he also send them to torture chamber?

[keltzkroz]

It feels like we are only going in circles. You insist on one version of the choices, while I insist on another. I guess, well just have to agree to disagree.

[sin_is_fun]

It feels like we are only going in circles. You insist on one version of the choices, while I insist on another. I guess, well just have to agree to disagree.

We can always agree to disagree.

I hope I wont be thrown in hell for disagreeing.