CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[Esquilax]

“no corresponding finite crime through which it could be deserved”. That is your personal view and having a very lax attitude towards holiness and also a very limited appreciation of the extreme nature of sin. Our standards of “holiness” is really kindergarten stuff.

Given that I don't think holiness nor sin are real, I'd say I have the laxest possible attitude toward them. More importantly, since we weigh the severity of wrongdoings by the harm that they cause, and nothing we do could harm god by definition, then sin- defined as an offense against god- is nonexistent anyway. Your god is just having a continuous diva moment, there.

“Believing in a diety for which there is no evidence” You are not expressing a view consistent throughout even atheism about the existence of a “deity” or “supernatural being”. Our friend Richard Dawkins suggests little green men that seeded life, accepting that some higher intelligence (forbid it may be God) was behind this extremely complex universe.

A common quote mine, but not a true one: Dawkins suggested panspermia- your "little green men"- as a possible scenario that would involve a creator of life, not the one he actually subscribes to. That answer was later taken out of context by creationists in order to misrepresent his position as the one you've posited here. Here, read it from the horse's... blog. It's down the page a little ways.

Will I light you up? Well, let us put it into perspective. Millions of unborn babies are killed annually without them having a say or any choice in the matter. You have a choice my friend. At present you choose to be “lighted”, although I doubt whether any unborn would voluntarily choose to be killed. Would you have ?

That's a red herring, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it doesn't answer my question. I correct you on simply phrasing this as a fair choice, and your response is to... phrase it as a fair choice again. If you're not going to do anything more than insist your position is right and not address my responses, why bother?

The plain and simple truth is that you are confronted with God and you can reject or accept Him. As simple as that. That is the choice before you. At present you reject Him.
You are offered a gift that you do not by your own merit deserve. This unmerited gift will protect you from harm’s way. You ignore it and harm comes to you. Now you blame the person offering you the gift for not “forcing” you to accept it? Yet on the other hand you do not wish to be a “puppet”? It is illogical. Or would you not mind being a “puppet?
It is so funny. Christians are accused of “wanting to force their views on others”, yet at the same time you want them to. Can you see the lack of logic? You really want Christ to “force you”?

Don't preach at me. Secondly, who created the harm that I'm being saved from? Who constructed the metrics by which I can be exposed to that harm at all?

Without god, I'd have no risk of that harm at all! Root cause: god. Him "saving" us from it is simply repairing damage he himself caused, and then shifted the blame onto us.

You are wrong. There is sufficient evidence for a rational man – as proven by a great number of scientists being believers.

Recent polls suggest that the number of scientists who believe in god are statistically less than the general public, dipping as low as one third in some studies: Wrong again.

I would suggest that not believing (on an intellectual level) is not rational. Do some objective research on any field you wish where the Bible can be objectively tested. The easiest I suppose is history and archaeology. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence that the Bible facts are false.

Also incorrect: for one, there's no historical records of large numbers of Jewish slaves in Egypt. There's civilizations older than the bible claims the earth is. etc etc...

Hell, just try to find me a contemporary reference for Jesus. You can't do it.

Questions yes, but no conclusive proof – not even one – where the Bible has stated something as fact. Test it. Quite a few have been “false alarms" – such as the claim that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch – later proven false. No mass exodus? Recent satellite infrared technology suggests otherwise.

You are going to have to do more than claim things without references.

Oh, and incidentally, it's not up to us to disprove the bible. It's up to you guys to prove it's true; that's why I'm so interested that your only response here is to say we can't disprove it, and therefore it's true.

You warn your child that touching a live electric wire is threatening? You can clearly see your bias? Will you remove the child? You want God to forcefully convert you?

I don't think god exists, but I'm sure you can understand that I'm saying the hypothetical god you're proposing is vastly out of step with the all moral being you seem to think he is.

True, Accepting Jesus is not logical. If it is purely based on logic, it would be worthless. It is a spiritual matter, through the work of the Holy Spirit. You can believe the whole Bible from beginning to end, accept every fact as the truth and yet be unconverted. It was John Wesley that wrote "I went to America to convert the Indians, but, oh, who will convert me?"
Jesus said to Nicodemus “ Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Joh 3:3

Yeah, not buying it.

Yet you want me to? See analogy of paramedic.

No, I want you to converse with me. I'm an atheist; I'm going to need more than bible verses and claims of spirituality to convince me.

My claims all rest on the Bible – which I have found to be truthful and comforting – as opposed to threatening. If there is anything in there that you wish to dispute, I will be happy to answer. Just a suggestion – why not look at the basis for right and wrong – which you seem to use for your arguments. What is your basis for suggesting something is right or wrong?

What's my basis? Reality and the people in it. Morality is built up around the facts of the world and how we react to it.

No doubt you'll disagree and assert that god is the basis for morality. I don't want to derail the thread going into all the problems I have with that, so my suggestion is to not do that: if you do I'll respond, and I'd hate for us both to waste our time on something that's demonstrably false, like a god given morality.