(October 12, 2012 at 4:11 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: ...

(October 12, 2012 at 2:16 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: If he couldn't figure out a way to "make known his power" without having to make nonbelievers, then he shouldn't have made anyone. How would you like it if the only reason God brought you into existence was to suffer in eternal torment so the elect could somehow appreciate God better? This breaks the golden rule.

Golden rule? If atheism is true, if there isn't a God, the golden rule is a fabrication, a subjective opinion. It wouldn't matter whether or not someone else adhered to it......it's subjective and not binding.

I don't think that as an atheist/agnostic you can evaluate the character/existence of God by whether or not He passes a subjective rule or not.

My own beliefs on morality do not matter in this debate. What matters is whether God is acting consistently with his own character and principles as traditionally established by Christianity and philosophers. God is all knowing, all just, all powerful, all everywhere, perfect, desires good etc. Whether my own beliefs about morality would allow me to make such judgments is irrelevant because I'm focusing on how God as described in the Bible breaks your own assumptions about what God must be and must not be.

Quote:

(October 12, 2012 at 2:16 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Nobody would want to not be elect and suffer in torment. Everybody would want to be elect.

Actually by nature no one wants God, people want to be gods of their own lives and not give Him glory.

Yet you yourself want God. Why's that? Oh, yeah, that's right, you happen to be one of the elect.

Now that you're elect, would you rather not be elect? Or are you glad you're elect?

You obviously have no problem wanting God and giving him glory. Why do other people? Is it because they're not elect?

Quote:But God in his great mercy steps in and saves some of us....even while we are enemies of the cross.

He should have saved everyone, or if he couldn't for some reason (so much for being all-powerful) he should have made no one. It's unfair for the nonbelievers to suffer in hell for what they couldn't help. They can't help it if they were brought into existence. They can't help it if they weren't elect.

[quote='Darkstar' pid='348743' dateline='1350083405']
[quote=Reasonble_Jeff]Here is a more accurate analogy. In your analogy the children are innocent.

Quote:Do you still hold to this, and if so why?

Still hold to what? That babies are sinners?

If that is the question, the my response is, "Yes...babies are born in sin and need redemption just as much as you or I."

My reasons would be that the Bible teaches so.

Unfortunately for the bible (and your response) babies are not born into sin, as "sin" whatever the fuck it is to begin with (bullshit), doesn't appear to have any means of hereditary transfer (unless you'd like to demonstrate at least two things for us). My children are definitely not innocent, btw, and I'm no more "guilty" of anything that they are, but that's besides the point. Imagine that my daughters were the scum of the fucking earth and my son was a paragon of virtue and innocence. Does this change your reaction to the scenario? Can I beat them within an inch of their life now to make my sons gift (of not being beaten and getting a new trike) more wonderful? Does that demonstrate my glory or mercy or (sense of-standard of)justice? Now, to bring that home......there are a great many of us who's only "sin" (I hate it when I have to humor you) is our lack of belief. Really solid stuff right there.

"The bible teaches so", well....judging by these responses it is not only innaccurate with respect to reality, but absolutely worthless with respect to the simplest interpretations of glory, mercy, or justice. Just why -do- you read that rag again?

(October 12, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: [quote='Darkstar' pid='348743' dateline='1350083405']
[quote=Reasonble_Jeff]Here is a more accurate analogy. In your analogy the children are innocent.

Quote:Do you still hold to this, and if so why?

Still hold to what? That babies are sinners?

If that is the question, the my response is, "Yes...babies are born in sin and need redemption just as much as you or I."

My reasons would be that the Bible teaches so.

You said that the children in the analogy were innovent, but maintain that babies are not. I do not see how these points can be reconciled.

(October 12, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Still hold to what? That babies are sinners?

If that is the question, the my response is, "Yes...babies are born in sin and need redemption just as much as you or I."

My reasons would be that the Bible teaches so.

Your god's a dick and you may want to consider getting checked out for brain tumors or any kind of abnormalities in your thinking process.

Still hold to what? That babies are sinners?

If that is the question, the my response is, "Yes...babies are born in sin and need redemption just as much as you or I."

My reasons would be that the Bible teaches so.
++++++++++++++++++++


Except when it teaches that it is NOT SO

Ezekiel 18:20 >> The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.

Romans 2:6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done."

Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6 Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."

One of the great things of religion is that you can contradict most claims of the bible - with other quotes from the bible = making the bible the BEST reading material to prove the religion to be nonsense

(October 12, 2012 at 9:14 pm)ThomM Wrote: One of the great things of religion is that you can contradict most claims of the bible - with other quotes from the bible = making the bible the BEST reading material to prove the religion to be nonsense

What are you talking about? Those aren't contradictions, god just changed his mind.

(October 12, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Darkstar Wrote: You said that the children in the analogy were innovent, but maintain that babies are not. I do not see how these points can be reconciled.

Hmm, perhaps I misspoke. What I had intended to get across was that his analogy wasn't accurate because the children in his analogy are innocent whereas in reality we are all guilty (children included) because we are born in sin.

(October 13, 2012 at 8:32 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: because we are born in sin.

I'd like to hear your evidence for this... I'm in need of a good laugh.

(October 12, 2012 at 7:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Unfortunately for the bible (and your response) babies are not born into sin, as "sin" whatever the fuck it is to begin with (bullshit), doesn't appear to have any means of hereditary transfer (unless you'd like to demonstrate at least two things for us).

The Bible would say differently...that sin is in fact hereditary.

Romans 5:12 (NLT) — 12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

(October 12, 2012 at 7:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Imagine that my daughters were the scum of the fucking earth and my son was a paragon of virtue and innocence. Does this change your reaction to the scenario? Can I beat them within an inch of their life now to make my sons gift (of not being beaten and getting a new trike) more wonderful? Does that demonstrate my glory or mercy or (sense of-standard of)justice?

It would be more accurate if your son too was scum of the earth. Then you as a just judge (God is a just judge) should punish them all, but you choose to have mercy on some and take the punishment yourself so that the son (whom in this scenario would be the one that you would take the punishment for) can be shown mercy instead of justice. And yet you are still just because punishment was executed.

(October 12, 2012 at 7:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Now, to bring that home......there are a great many of us who's only "sin" (I hate it when I have to humor you) is our lack of belief. Really solid stuff right there.

Sin is when you do things, like things, love things, in a way that shows that you value those things more than God.

We are all born that way, but God in his great mercy redeems those that would place their faith in Jesus.

Titus 3:3–7 (NLT) — 3 Once we, too, were foolish and disobedient. We were misled and became slaves to many lusts and pleasures. Our lives were full of evil and envy, and we hated each other. 4 But—“When God our Savior revealed his kindness and love, 5 he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit. 6 He generously poured out the Spirit upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior. 7 Because of his grace he declared us righteous and gave us confidence that we will inherit eternal life.”