God's Nature and character

[FatAndFaithless]

This seems awfully close to punishing the child for the crimes of their parents and I do hope I dont need to point out how abhorrent this is.

Punishing later generations for the 'sins' of past ones is kind of a theme in the Christian skydaddy's book.

[SteveII]

No.
You don't ask good questions.
They're judged according to their own judgment, and found guilty. If that person had responded suitably to the revelation received, whether by creation, the conscience or other means, they would be forgiven. This would vary by individual and so, no, I'm not going to give you an exhaustive list of the possibilities.

Well I'm glad you know they would be found guilty. And yet again you're ignoring the important part of my question. They haven't accepted Jesus because they've never been exposed to him, and just looking at creation or their conscience hasn't 'revealed' the Christian god to them.

You can get a pretty good explanation to answer your question here...

[FatAndFaithless]

Well I'm glad you know they would be found guilty. And yet again you're ignoring the important part of my question. They haven't accepted Jesus because they've never been exposed to him, and just looking at creation or their conscience hasn't 'revealed' the Christian god to them.

You can get a pretty good explanation to answer your question here...

What a crock of shit.

[jesus_wept]

I was being flippant when I asked whether the reason it's not spelt out clearer is to stop Christians doing their children a favour but I think the point about parents is a bit of a red herring because, even if I give you that, we're still left in the awful position that children being killed is something to rejoice about. So, if you dont mind, I shall modify my original question to suit your backpedal.

So killing children is actually doing them a favour, as long as the person murdering them doesn't believe it will send them to heaven, because they'll go to heaven and avoid any chance of going to hell?

Also, what does your god do with the children he's decided not to send to heaven because their parents killed them believing they'd go to heaven? This seems awfully close to punishing the child for the crimes of their parents and I do hope I dont need to point out how abhorrent this is.

Another alternative is that, being omniscient, God could know what that child would have grown up to be if his parents hadn't killed him, and treat him accordingly. Note that that alternative is not specific to this situation. I could have used this defense against the initial charge. But, I do think an age of accountability doctrine can be derived from the Bible and does generally apply.

I believe this is called having your cake and eating it too. On the one hand you want a god who decides what's going to happen based on their future actions and on the other you want an age of accountability doctrine too. Why dont you just do the honest thing and say my god can do whatever he wants because he's magic and end the debate?

It would've been nice if you'd answered my modified question btw, instead of carrying on with the red herring about parents killing their children.

[John V]

I believe this is called having your cake and eating it too. On the one hand you want a god who decides what's going to happen based on their future actions and on the other you want an age of accountability doctrine too.

I don't want or need both. The alternative can cover any situation.

Why dont you just do the honest thing and say my god can do whatever he wants because he's magic and end the debate?

I pretty much did, but debate didn't end. You guys seem pissed because there are answers to you charges.

It would've been nice if you'd answered my modified question btw, instead of carrying on with the red herring about parents killing their children.

Interesting that you note the bit about parents killing their children is a red herring. You're right - it was a red herring when introduced by your side.

[jesus_wept]

I don't want or need both. The alternative can cover any situation.

In which case I shall simply repeat that you were wrong when you said all children go to heaven and point out that this is a huge backpedal.

I pretty much did, but debate didn't end. You guys seem pissed because there are answers to you charges.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call some your of your replies answers but, if you're happy with "because magic" as an explanation, I'm happy to leave it at that.

Interesting that you note the bit about parents killing their children is a red herring. You're right - it was a red herring when introduced by your side.

Yes, I introduced it as a flippant remark, later said it was a red herring and explained why (in the post you quoted), allowed you to "modify the situation" and you still decided to use it as a strawman and ignore my modified question...

[John V]

In which case I shall simply repeat that you were wrong when you said all children go to heaven and point out that this is a huge backpedal.

And I'll simply repeat that my first position was adequate for the situation at hand, and there's nothing wrong with modifying a position as the scenario changes - especially in this format.

You don't see me charging my opponents with backpedaling because they begin with one scenario, then when answered, change to another.

[jesus_wept]

And I'll simply repeat that my first position was adequate for the situation at hand, and there's nothing wrong with modifying a position as the scenario changes - especially in this format.

I was quite happy to let you modify the position and argue it, ort even argue the first position, it was you who didn't have the decency to allow me to modify my question and decided to carry on arguing a red herring instead.

We can all see that, why are you even arguing this? Who are you trying to kid?

[Raven]

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/be...heard.aspx

You know what the nice thing about being god is? You cannot possibly lose! It doesn't matter how mean, nasty, capricious, vile and cruel you are – you can always count on your scared-stiff sycophantic followers letting you off the hook. I read the article an earlier poster linked to and had myself a right good laugh. These people never let you down. I just love the knots they tie themselves into to make it come out right. If this country would put the same level of effort into making it a better place that they put into letting an imaginary dictator off the hook for everything we'd have a paradise to rival the mythical Eden.
For instance:

" In other words, is it fair for God to condemn people who never had an opportunity to hear the message of Christ?
Often the question is asked as a diversion. It immediately takes away the focus on the person asking the question and shifts a problem back to the Christian.”

You gotta love that one. Right off, it's the non-Xtian's fault for asking. He's being sneaky! You know how those heathens are!

“Sometimes it's a legitimate question driven by real concern over the nature of God. If He's really all loving, then the fact that He appears to condemn those who have never heard the gospel comes across as harsh, unmerciful and unjust “

Sometimes it's a legitimate question. Huh? It's a question. A question that all should be asking. Don't they want to know what kind of god they are dealing with?

“A point related to the motivation for the question has to do with truth. Does the question, however it is answered, change whether or not Christianity is true? It doesn't. If God exists and has revealed Himself to us, and if Christ is the only way to God, then the question may puzzle us, but it won't change the truth of the Christian message. “

Like I said, god cannot lose. No matter what. He exists. He has revealed himself and Jesus is the only way to get to him. End of story. The question, no matter how it is answered will not change the truth of that. Do these sheeple ever actually think?

“everyone has an inherent knowledge of God, that this can be clearly known from creation and that everyone also has a God-given moral compass.
Is it true, then, that "those who have never heard," really have no idea of God's existence or of their moral responsibilities? Biblically speaking, it's not true. "Those who have never heard" have heard something and they do have access to key information about God. They know that God exists, that there is a moral standard and that they have broken this standard.”

Once again he wins every time! See, it's all humanity's fault if they don't believe! They know god exists, so if they don't believe it's their own fault!

"How could it be fair and just for those who have never even had a chance to hear the gospel, which is necessary for salvation, to be condemned to hell? The question sounds powerful, but behind it lie faulty assumptions." 1
What are these "faulty assumptions"? "The first mistaken assumption," continue Morgan and Peterson, "is that our condemnation is based on a rejection of the gospel. Scripture teaches that our condemnation is based on the fact that we are sinners, not because at some point in time we rejected the gospel … Furthermore, God's wrath is revealed against everyone who suppresses his truth revealed through creation … Strictly speaking, the Bible denies that there are persons who have never heard of God." 2
Morgan and Peterson go on to explain another faulty assumption, this one having to do with "a confusion of justice and mercy." 3 God is merciful in that He has provided a way of salvation via Christ for those who will accept Him. But God is also just in that unrepentance will not go unnoticed.”

What a bunch of crap. First he makes the world. Then he stocks it full of people so they can play scycophantic toadies to him to assuage his tender ego. None of us asked to be here, but we're here anyway. Then he threatens everybody with infinite punishment for finite crimes. Apparently the worst crime of all is to not to do everything just the way he wants you to and be good little xtians. And this is leaving aside the fact that there is no actual worthwhile evidence that he even exists. But I should believe anyway. Because faith is a virtue. No, faith (believing what I have no good reason to believe)is not a virtue. It is foolishness of a very high order.

“We know that God will deal fairly with those who have not received a direct presentation of the gospel, just as He will deal fairly with those who have. But is God's way too narrow? Far from it. God's way is wide enough for everyone willing to accept it and receive Christ. The most important question any of us can answer is the one Jesus asked his own disciples, "But what about you? Who do you say I am?" (Matthew 16:15; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). “

That ends it. Well, as for me what I say is that I don't believe he even existed. If he did he was not divine, but another itinerant preacher. There were many at the time. And as for our friends at focus on the family, your god's way is too narrow because no matter how you try and massage it what it comes down to is his way or else. Why should anyone respond well to that?

[John V]

I was quite happy to let you modify the position and argue it, ort even argue the first position,

No you weren't - you called it backpedaling, more than once.

it was you who didn't have the decency to allow me to modify my question and decided to carry on arguing a red herring instead.

I honestly don't know what question you're referring to. If you repeat it I'll address it.