(June 30, 2015 at 4:27 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Morally perfect?  Really?  This is circular logic at its finest/worst.  God is morally perfect because the bible demands you take its word for it rather than going by the actual actions described in the book itself.  God's immorality begins in Genesis chapter 2 and continues throughout.  You hand wave the atrocities described within because of a book - whose only authority on the matter comes from itself - tells you to.  Utterly ridiculous.

As far as not being able to have sin in its presence, it sounds like your god is a wuss.  Surely the almighty - which created everything, including, presumably, sin itself - should be able to handle it in a better way than sending those who have sinned to eternal torture.  Moreover, it brings up all the problems that have never received an adequate answer, such as:

Why did god create creatures that are at least as likely to fail as to succeed?  Even with free will, he could've made us more likely to follow his lead than not.
Why does he continue to create creatures that are destined to sin, and thus go to hell?  Isn't that incredibly wasteful?
Why does a perfect being desire us to rejoin him?  Doesn't want/desire point to imperfection?
Why hell, which isn't corrective, and not some other mechanism?
Why doesn't he simply provide unambiguous evidence of his existence and power, thereby greatly reducing the number of people who are sent to hell?
etc.
etc.

I deem your god petty because he thinks a finite crime, even those that don't actually hurt anyone (like unbelief) to be worthy of eternal torture.  Saying, "Well, the bible says he's just, so it's just" is laughable.  And, no, arguments from ignorance aren't going to cut it as a response.

God's "immoral" acts in the OT does not advance your argument against the existence of God. You would have to demonstrate that God either 1) did not have the right or 2) did not have suffient reasons for doing what he did. Since, if Christianity is true, everyone is eventually judged for their actions, you can't claim 1.  Since you do not possess an infinite mind that can grasp the trillions of consequences of each action, you cannot claim 2: God did not have sufficient reason. 

Sin was not created. The possibility of sin is a result of free will. It would be defined by an act of commission or omission that violates Gods moral law as revealed in 1) the OT and 2) the NT. 

God created creatures with free will--which by definition have the ability to choose something other than God's moral law. This brings us back to the point made several times, God made us because God wants us to have a relationship with him. Sin prevents this. The crime is not unbelief. It is simply that we have sinned and that sin needs to be attoned for. Attonement has been provided. The choice is ours. 

God's character is complete only with relationships (i.e. Doctrine of the Trinity). So is ours.

You think the consequences of a lifetime of not being interested in a relationship with God should have some corrective finite punishment. God apparently feels that was enough. 

God acted very directly in the days of the ancient Jews. Then through the prophets. Then through the events of the NT. For the past 2000 years, Christians have been able to live with a personal relationship with God. Notice the progression of interations? For many reasons, we are in the best of those periods of God's interation with us. God apparently considers his previous revelations and the evidence of the now-possible relationship (changed lives of Christians) to be sufficient evidence to his existence.

(June 30, 2015 at 6:41 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 4:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: What does any of that have to do with heaven, hell, and purpose?

You are assuming I am a literal creationist. Stop making assumptions.

So how does a god cropping up in the desert work in your world? 3000 years ago. After billions of years of nothing happening. How do you make ends meet, given that kind of model?

How do you know what God was doing for those billions of years? That is less than a blink of an eye for God. How do I know how God created us (and when)? No one was there. Is Genesis 1-3 symbolic? Perhaps. Did it take 6 days or 6 billion years, I don't know. Does original sin have to be an apple? No. Does it matter much? Not as much as you seem to think.

I was there.

(July 5, 2015 at 12:35 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 8:48 am)SteveII Wrote: God does not send people to Hell, they send themselves.

This stinky little turd gets a little smellier every time it pops up. No. Just, no. Nobody sends themselves to hell. They are (according to your iron age book of voodoo) judged by gawd. If your gawd finds them unworthy then he casts them into hell.

So if you commit a crime and are sentenced to prison, who is responsible for you being in prison? The judge/jury? No, you are. I know it's not in vogue right now, but there is such a thing as personal responsibility.

(July 5, 2015 at 12:38 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 9:15 am)SteveII Wrote: You are right, I have been brought up believing as I do. That does not make a bit of difference in the truth claim though. Each religion needs to be a) weighed on whether it is internally consistent, b) consistent with our observations of the world, c) has a well-defined image of God (tying that all back to a and b), and d) bears fruit.

And have you judged every religion my these criteria?

I'm betting you haven't even judged your own pet belief since internal consistency is on your list.

Yes. What is not internally consistent? You do realize that there are millions of books on doctrine and theology hashing this all out. You are not pointing out anything that has not been asked and answered. Your problem is that you are looking at it from a perspective that God does not exist so all the finer points are BS and then since all the finer points are BS, conclude that Christianity has not answered these questions it needs to answer so God does not exist.

(July 5, 2015 at 12:44 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 11:55 am)SteveII Wrote: You are missing the point. YOU decided not to mend the relationship that YOUR sin damaged. You cannot be in the presence of God (heaven) without mending that relationship. This is the consequence of your free will--God cannot mend it for you--it MUST be your choice.

Yeah, Kevin! Gawd, the all powerful creator of the universe, cannot forgive you unless you come grovelling, face in the dirt at it's feet. But, somehow, us poor fallible humans manage to forgive each other on a fairly regular basis whether we're asked to or not.

Steve-o, you have a truly low opinion of your gawd.

Your continued use of "gawd" is childish and indicates contempt (as I'm sure you intend it to be). Why would I be interested in a dialog with someone BOTH childish and contemptuous?

(July 6, 2015 at 9:44 am)SteveII Wrote: You do realize that there are millions of books on doctrine and theology hashing this all out.

And they all say something different as each individual or group interprets within their own bias. Interpreting the beliefs of mythology will always be an issue as there is no 'gawd'.

(July 6, 2015 at 9:25 am)SteveII Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 4:27 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Morally perfect?  Really?  This is circular logic at its finest/worst.  God is morally perfect because the bible demands you take its word for it rather than going by the actual actions described in the book itself.  God's immorality begins in Genesis chapter 2 and continues throughout.  You hand wave the atrocities described within because of a book - whose only authority on the matter comes from itself - tells you to.  Utterly ridiculous.

As far as not being able to have sin in its presence, it sounds like your god is a wuss.  Surely the almighty - which created everything, including, presumably, sin itself - should be able to handle it in a better way than sending those who have sinned to eternal torture.  Moreover, it brings up all the problems that have never received an adequate answer, such as:

Why did god create creatures that are at least as likely to fail as to succeed?  Even with free will, he could've made us more likely to follow his lead than not.
Why does he continue to create creatures that are destined to sin, and thus go to hell?  Isn't that incredibly wasteful?
Why does a perfect being desire us to rejoin him?  Doesn't want/desire point to imperfection?
Why hell, which isn't corrective, and not some other mechanism?
Why doesn't he simply provide unambiguous evidence of his existence and power, thereby greatly reducing the number of people who are sent to hell?
etc.
etc.

I deem your god petty because he thinks a finite crime, even those that don't actually hurt anyone (like unbelief) to be worthy of eternal torture.  Saying, "Well, the bible says he's just, so it's just" is laughable.  And, no, arguments from ignorance aren't going to cut it as a response.

God's "immoral" acts in the OT does not advance your argument against the existence of God. You would have to demonstrate that God either 1) did not have the right or 2) did not have suffient reasons for doing what he did. Since, if Christianity is true, everyone is eventually judged for their actions, you can't claim 1.  Since you do not possess an infinite mind that can grasp the trillions of consequences of each action, you cannot claim 2: God did not have sufficient reason.

Your entire 'reasoning' already already presupposes the existence of your god, so your argument is fallacious.  Regarding 1, the notion of might makes right is inherently immoral.  Just because, for argument's sake, your god created the universe, it does not follow that he should be judge, jury, and executioner over it.  If we have free will, then treating us as objects to be discarded in a pit of fire for simply not giving god what it wants is immoral.  Your god is supposedly infinite, yet the only system it can come up with is one that results in no chance to learn and change?

And your response to 2 is simply the argument from ignorance fallacy.  You need to do better than that in defense of your god.

I'm assuming you're an American.  It never ceases to amaze me how people who claim to value freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility in this life are so willing to be ruled by a monarch in the next.  It's utterly baffling to me that anyone would want to be, literally, lorded over.

Quote:Sin was not created. The possibility of sin is a result of free will. It would be defined by an act of commission or omission that violates Gods moral law as revealed in 1) the OT and 2) the NT.

And yet, your god supposedly created the entire universe, including the notion of free will.  Sin not being created is simply not true if you believe god created everything.  You can't have it both ways.  Moreover, your god should be able to handle sin without requiring the wishy washy blood sacrifice of itself/its son.  Of course, the entire notion of original sin is idiotic and immoral anyway.  Every action your god does simply places more limitations on it and damages its character.  It's lessened at every turn.

Quote:This brings us back to the point made several times, God made us because God wants us to have a relationship with him.

Which, again, implies that your god is lacking.

Quote:Sin prevents this. The crime is not unbelief. It is simply that we have sinned and that sin needs to be attoned for. Attonement has been provided. The choice is ours.

This is such bullshit.  Nothing I have done in my life warrants eternal torture.  Period.  That you're so okay with it speaks volumes about your own character.  The whole setup is one of extortion.  "Well, you can either have a relationship with me, or suffer for eternity.  It's your choice."  Except, it's not really a fair choice, is it?  It's a wholly despicable system, with god as the tyrant at the top.  Fuck him.

Quote:You think the consequences of a lifetime of not being interested in a relationship with God should have some corrective finite punishment. God apparently feels that was enough.

God acted very directly in the days of the ancient Jews. Then through the prophets. Then through the events of the NT. For the past 2000 years, Christians have been able to live with a personal relationship with God. Notice the progression of interations? For many reasons, we are in the best of those periods of God's interation with us. God apparently considers his previous revelations and the evidence of the now-possible relationship (changed lives of Christians) to be sufficient evidence to his existence.

Blah blah blah.  Lots of words saying nothing of value.  "I believe that god is right before considering the evidence, and in the face of such evidence I simply point to its mysterious ways as a way to wave away the contradictions."  Your version of apologetics is really quite hilarious since it merely only reinforces all of the stereotypes with your regurgitation of tired fallacies and talking points.

(July 6, 2015 at 12:36 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 9:25 am)SteveII Wrote: God's "immoral" acts in the OT does not advance your argument against the existence of God. You would have to demonstrate that God either 1) did not have the right or 2) did not have suffient reasons for doing what he did. Since, if Christianity is true, everyone is eventually judged for their actions, you can't claim 1.  Since you do not possess an infinite mind that can grasp the trillions of consequences of each action, you cannot claim 2: God did not have sufficient reason.

Your entire 'reasoning' already already presupposes the existence of your god, so your argument is fallacious.  Regarding 1, the notion of might makes right is inherently immoral.  Just because, for argument's sake, your god created the universe, it does not follow that he should be judge, jury, and executioner over it.  If we have free will, then treating us as objects to be discarded in a pit of fire for simply not giving god what it wants is immoral.  Your god is supposedly infinite, yet the only system it can come up with is one that results in no chance to learn and change?

And your response to 2 is simply the argument from ignorance fallacy.  You need to do better than that in defense of your god.

I'm assuming you're an American.  It never ceases to amaze me how people who claim to value freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility in this life are so willing to be ruled by a monarch in the next.  It's utterly baffling to me that anyone would want to be, literally, lorded over.

I was not setting out to prove the existence of God. I was responding to your charge that the Christian God is immoral. Although it seems when some point of doctrine is explained to one of you, often, it seems, the response "you can't prove God...so there! comes up." 

Regarding 1, you are right, might does not make right.  On what basis do you say that God cannot be judge jury and executioner? If you happen to be God, then you are always right--by definition. Can you imagine what infinite is? Can you imagine what omniscient and omnipotent are? No, it is beyond any of us. Take those characteristics and apply them to the attributes of perfectly moral and perfectly just. You presume to know what that would look like. I understand the theories of how we could have developed a certain "morality" if we did indeed evolve (good for the herd and all), but where in the world do you get the standard of morality by which to judge an infinite God. Certainly your evolved sensibilities cannot be the basis!

Regarding 2, since we are talking about a God whom, according to some doctrines, surveyed all possible worlds in which man had free will and chose the one with the greatest eternal good, we are in no position to object to anything God chose or chooses to do. This is in no way an argument from ignorance if, while we do not know each specific result, we understand the end game of an infinite mind that can handle the trillions of choices made every day by everyone until the end of time.  

In general, you seem to be judging God with a combination of 1) lack of understanding for what it means to be God, and 2) some subjective measures that has no basis in reality. Perhaps a look at the list of the attributes of God will give a fuller understanding of the term.

(July 6, 2015 at 12:36 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: This is such bullshit.  Nothing I have done in my life warrants eternal torture.  Period.  That you're so okay with it speaks volumes about your own character.  The whole setup is one of extortion.  "Well, you can either have a relationship with me, or suffer for eternity.  It's your choice."  Except, it's not really a fair choice, is it?  It's a wholly despicable system, with god as the tyrant at the top.  Fuck him.

Quote:You think the consequences of a lifetime of not being interested in a relationship with God should have some corrective finite punishment. God apparently feels that was enough.

God acted very directly in the days of the ancient Jews. Then through the prophets. Then through the events of the NT. For the past 2000 years, Christians have been able to live with a personal relationship with God. Notice the progression of interations? For many reasons, we are in the best of those periods of God's interation with us. God apparently considers his previous revelations and the evidence of the now-possible relationship (changed lives of Christians) to be sufficient evidence to his existence.

Blah blah blah.  Lots of words saying nothing of value.  "I believe that god is right before considering the evidence, and in the face of such evidence I simply point to its mysterious ways as a way to wave away the contradictions."  Your version of apologetics is really quite hilarious since it merely only reinforces all of the stereotypes with your regurgitation of tired fallacies and talking points.

Your dislike of the system is noted. Of course calling a doctrine or other beliefs "tired fallacies and talking points" is hardly good argumentation.