free will paradox

[fr0d0]

Ah. So because I'm not perfect, I should be punished? I have flaws, so hellfire is appropriate? How does this seem fair to you?

Yeah. It's called justice. You think people should get away with bad stuff?
"Hellfire" lol. Sounds scary doesn't it. Of course you're trying to say you're own slight disdemeanours don't warrant the same punishment as a serial murderer right? Well who said you did? If God is just, as I believe, how do you rationalise that? Because I cant. What I've been talking about here is hell on earth. this life where what comes around, goes around, You reap what you sow. Your own negativity, no matter how small, limits your own enjoyment of life. I'm sure you'd agree with that on a secular level.

I was really talking about the "you're going to hell no matter what, because you're not as great as me" mentality of the dude, there.

That mentality is entirely your own and nothing to do with my beliefs. I find that incredibly childish.

Here you're presented with an idea that you are given an opportunity to achieve perfection although you are not perfect. The only aim of which is to give you happiness. What would your response be to such a gift? A: "This benefactor must be forcing this crap life upon me because I'm not perfect like it is, therefore I'm not happy with it."

And? The issue is that the book is an immoral book. I don't care who wrote it, if they did so under anything other than the guise of fiction, they are just as immoral.

Pardon me if it don't take the author nations' word over yours.
Is there immorality in extremes in the Bible. Sure there is. Is there evidence of God being bad. None. Justice, like you've suggested, meets the crime. Big crimes attract big punishment. The Bible has to address extremes to illustrate the point.
A lot of modern societies laws are built upon the moral guidelines found in this book. As we become further departed in our understanding of it, we become more primitive in our morals, that is, less moral.

thoughtcrime

If it's harmful to you, do you not want to deal with that? This is your personal hell.

What I'm feeling is frustration that this assumption of punishment from birth is still a thing to some of you people. Can't you see how wrong that is?

Well the basis of Christianity is that assumption that people aren't born perfect. This is very clearly illustrated in the story of Adam and Eve. Man is fallible/ has the predisposition to fall. This seems to be the common zeitgiest too. People on here concur, when I've asked. What is your opinion then EsQ? Do you think that people are perfect and have no need of improving themselves?
Children are innocents, to be sure. They are born with the same predispositions of all humans. We teach them civility hopefully, in order to function in a society.

Humans can do good things, can't they? You think god's nature is good, but that doesn't mean god is the only good thing. One can disbelieve in him without losing their sense of morality, or their appreciation of goodness. This is what I'm saying: she hasn't turned her back on goodness, just on god. Now, she simply believes goodness comes from a different source.

I didn't claim any exclusivity on goodness. I didn't even claim any exclusiveness on ultimate goodness. Morality, rooted in ultimate good always trumps morality rooted in the mediocre. Seems to me she's turned her back on some very worrying craziness that I don't recognise even slightly. What the hell was she? Where does she believe goodness comes from now then? From the good deeds of people? A secular realist fights against the mediocre. Doing good stuff, like you say you are doing, is very similar to what I'm promoting. Somehow I'm involved in some deep rooted evil where I see you as nice people doing what I would want all people to do. Why are you attcking me?

Oh, and I said my fiancee wasn't bitter. She's really not: sweetest little thing in the world, that girl. Losing her theism hasn't changed anything about her personality.

You say that like it ought to have done lol

We're just using words. When we say that she was "lucky" to have survived, we aren't invoking some external force called Luck that swooped down and saved her. We're simply expressing our joy at her survival, and our acknowledgement of the fact that the odds weren't exactly stacked in her favor, there. Nobody is praying at the altar of Luck, we're just using the english language as it was intended.

You're using the english language innacurately. People post examples of people using the opposite in lazy speech thanking God that gets ridiculed. Rightly I guess you'd think?