This is an offshoot of another thread..

Some of you (Krispy, etc.) have been asking the question: "Why does God judge us for being sinners, when He created us with the ability to sin ?"

As I said before, it's a valid question.

I thought it was extremely coincidental that when I rented the movie Luther tonight (I am a medieval times movie/book fanatic), this very question was posed.

If you haven't seen it already, Luther was frightened into servitude as a priest when he was nearly struck by lightening during a storm.

He harbored anger towards God for one reason or another (haven't gotten that far yet).

Anyway, another priest finds him arguing with the devil in the church stables, and tries to offer some comfort and insight.



Here is the conversation:

PRIEST: You know, in two years I have never heard you confess anything remotely interesting.

MARTIN: I live in terror of judgemnent.

PRIEST: And you think self-hatred will save you ?

MARTIN: Have you ever dared to think God is not just ? He has us born tainted by sin, then He is angry with us all our lives for our faults, THIS RIGHTEOUS JUDGE...WHO DAMNS US...threatening us with the fires of Hell ! I know, I know...I am evil to think it !

PRIEST: You're not evil. You're just not honest. God isn't angry with you. You are angry with God !

MARTIN: I wish there was no God.

PRIEST: Martin, what is it you seek ?

MARTIN: A MERCIFUL GOD ! A God whom I can love. A God who loves me.

PRIEST: Then look to Christ. Bind yourself to Christ, and you will know God's love. Say to Him, "I'm yours. Save me !

I AM YOURS. SAVE ME."

Anyone know enough about Christ to find some direction in that last statement ?

Krispy, what are your thoughts ?

I thought this was just amazing...God works in mysterious ways !

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 01-08-2005).]

Quite honestly, I don't know what your point is here. You start off with "Why does God judge us for being sinners, when He created us with the ability to sin ?" Then you end with "I AM YOURS. SAVE ME."

So...are you saying then...that we are created to sin merely so that "He" can save us from that very potential to sin that he created in us to begin with?

That seems rather egocentric to me.

[This message has been edited by outcast (edited 01-08-2005).]

Calling God egocentric is kinda funny, since He is God to being with, huh?

I wondered who would pic up on that...lol

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

(I am a medieval times movie/book fanatic)

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) me too!!

I thought it was extremely coincidental that when I rented the movie Luther tonight

I was going to rent that movie, but now you ruined it for me... just kidding

Anyone know enough about Christ to find some direction in that last statement ?

I find it interesting that so many people think that it is a contradiction that God, in the OT, is wrathful..but in the NT, Jesus is Love.

This is not a contradiction. It is complimentary. In the OT, God tells His people to do this and dont do that.. but do they listen? No.

example: When my wife and I put restrictions on her kids and tell them what the consequences are, we know (sorry Rust-- predict) that they will screw up or disobey (at times). When this happens, even though we knew (oops, sorry again, Rust. Predicted.) they would screw up, it does not mean that we wont be angry, nor does it mean we shouldnt punish... gotta be true to our word. (Even though we often are laughing -- about the screw up, not the punishment --on the inside, because we saw it coming and even have done many of those screw ups when we were young).

In the NT, God not only shows His love--by sending His Son-- but also by His Son's actions. And most of all, by including (allowing everyone to SEE and be included) "Gentiles" into His forgiving Grace.

i cant give an example of this because people are going to think that "if i'm good the punishment will end", but i'll try anyway:

Because my wife and i are true to our word about punishments and because we follow through when we say that we will do something the girls want to do, they know that we are telling the truth -- from both sides --.

OK, now the example (this example hasn't happened.. illustration only):

Let's say that when they go out, they have a curfew. If they are late for curfew, they will be grounded for two weeks. They get home one minute after curfew, should we ground them? Yes, because we are true to our word (among other reasons). During the gounding period, we notice that they have been very punctual on everything. So we tell them that if they, oh, i dont know... <<thinking of something difficult but not impossible>> and do it by tomorrow, then the grounding will be over.. a week early. We have shown grace.

Sorry, i did say that it wouldnt be a good example.. and by the way, my step-daughters seldom need punishment because they know that we do follow through with both good and bad promises AND they are good kids http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Too bad the priest in the movie, as well as all of totse, has failed to answer the question.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-08-2005).]

I've also seen the movie(I think it's odd to make a young sporty guy play Luther, but it soesn't really matter).

But I don't really understand how does this conversation answer the question? Are you saying God doesn't punish? Doesn't that contradict with the bible?

Or are you saying God screwed things up and made a last minute duck tape repair through Jesus?

I'm not trying to be an idiot, I'm just trying to get your point...

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

(I am a medieval times movie/book fanatic)

blah blah blah

example: When my wife and I put restrictions on her kids and tell them what the consequences are, we know (sorry Rust-- predict) that they will screw up or disobey (at times). When this happens, even though we knew (oops, sorry again, Rust. Predicted.) they would screw up, it does not mean that we wont be angry, nor does it mean we shouldnt punish... gotta be true to our word. (Even though we often are laughing -- about the screw up, not the punishment --on the inside, because we saw it coming and even have done many of those screw ups when we were young).

blah blah blah

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

The only problem with this little parable is, you aren't a god.

He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent.

-St. Thomas Aquinas

Is that what it meant, DS?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Too bad the priest in the movie, as well as all of totse, has failed to answer the question.



The answer he gave was that God is not angry with us (hence our punishment), rather we are angry with God.

If we were more honest with ourselves, we would recognize the perfection of His will, since He is the creator and all.

I am still studying to find the exacty answer, using Biblical reference. Even as a Christian, these are things I would like to know.

Just because I don't know them doesn't mean He doesn't exist, or that I should rebel against Him.

The priest also told Martin to look to Christ to find the deepest understanding of God's love, since that is what Christ personified.

Read it again, Rust...and stop TRYING to be the only bird flying north for the winter.

quote:Originally posted by outcast:

Quite honestly, I don't know what your point is here. You start off with "Why does God judge us for being sinners, when He created us with the ability to sin ?" Then you end with "I AM YOURS. SAVE ME."

So...are you saying then...that we are created to sin merely so that "He" can save us from that very potential to sin that he created in us to begin with?

That seems rather egocentric to me.



The point was to offer insight to a question that was asked by Krispy in another thread.

From what we perceive, God could be considered egocentric. I prefer to trust that He knows what He is doing, as God of the universe, and that all the missing puzzle pieces will be revealed upon entrance into Heaven.

Deuteronomy 4:39 -

Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.

Psalm 115:3 -

Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.

Ecclesiastes 1:13 -

I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!

"We cannot doubt that the Lord has arranged the order and methods and proportions of our life in a manner which is best adapted to the full and harmonious development of all our faculties, in time and in eternity. Every step in life is ordered with reference to the one which succeeds it. It has its beginning, its culmination, and its end. One step grows out of another and is based upon it. There is "first the blade, then the ear, and then the full corn in the ear." In the production of fruit the leaf is an instrument in forming the blossom, and the blossom in its turn is an instrument in forming the fruit. So it is with all spiritual growth." http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/cheav/childheav5.htm

Will we learn in heaven? Definitely. We're told that in the coming ages God will continuously reveal to us the "incomparable riches of his grace" (Ephesians 2:7, NIV). When we die, we'll know a lot more than we do now, but we'll keep learning about God and his creation and each other throughout eternity.

Here was your statement (which I thought was well put): "...we are created to sin merely so that "He" can save us from that very potential to sin that he created in us to begin with?"

I think it can (and should) be adapted to say, "We were created with the ability to sin, so that He can offer salvation to those that choose Him."

Yes, He created us with the ability to sin, but He also created us with the ability to choose eternity with Him, over eternity in Hell.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 01-09-2005).]

That was a magnificent quote, Tyrant...though I wouldn't necessarily use the word "consent".

Perhaps "submission", or "repentance" would have been a better choice.

To give God consent would be to have some sort of control over Him. That is hardly the case.

It doesn't sound as good to the prideful heart of a man, but it is more accurate.

How have you been ?

I supplied you with my email address a while back, so that we could speak outside of this forum, but I never heard from you.

Need it again ? I would enjoy a one-on-one with you very much.

God bless !

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ecclesiastes 1:13 -

I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!

Let me ask you this question. How does man study and explore by 'wisdom' all that is done under heaven...if we are not IN heaven? So then, that suggests to me that THIS IS heaven, this place called earth. Could it be that what the writer is referring to is about the burden of creating heaven on earth? A way of living that is good and righteous?

Do we really KNOW what these people were referring to as 'heaven'? We are now so far removed from those times.

---

In thinking about this further....the use of the word 'under' might be key to understanding what the writer is trying to say. However, this still brings me to the same questions.

Let me ask...have you done a study on the word 'saved' and how it is used in scripture? It might be interesting to do that. To compare its use in the OT, to its use in the NT.

[This message has been edited by outcast (edited 01-09-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That was a magnificent quote, Tyrant...though I wouldn't necessarily use the word "consent".

Perhaps "submission", or "repentance" would have been a better choice.

To give God consent would be to have some sort of control over Him. That is hardly the case.

Actually I think the use of the word 'consent' by Tyrant was a good one. Not that we would have 'control' over God...but that God has given us 'control' over ourselves to choose to govern ourselves in accordance of his will -or- outside of his will. In this we have a choice, wouldn't you say?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The answer he gave was that God is not angry with us (hence our punishment), rather we are angry with God.

If we were more honest with ourselves, we would recognize the perfection of His will, since He is the creator and all.

Sorry, but the original question is why are we punished. We being angry with god, or not "honest with ourselves" has nothing to do with the question, nor does it invalidate it; therefore you saying so does not answer the question.

You may say your point was to provide an insight. Fine. But that insight has nothing to do with the original question.

quote:Read it again, Rust...and stop TRYING to be the only bird flying north for the winter.

Care to explain why the first reply to this thread was exactly what I was saying? You know... the post you replied to after you replied to me? It's hilarious! You have the gall to say this, before you go on replying to another post that argues virtually the same thing I did!

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Care to explain why the first reply to this thread was exactly what I was saying? You know... the post you replied to after you replied to me? It's hilarious! You have the gall to say this, before you go on replying to another post that argues virtually the same thing I did!



Spooned!

Wow, Squirrel...you have nothing intelligent to offer on this subject, so you decide to cower behind Rust's bathrobes.

Any ideas on this topic of your own ?

Or is your intellectual prowess limited to "Nanny nanny boo boo" ?

quote:Sorry, but the original question is why are we punished.

No...learn how to read.

The original question was: "Why does God judge us for being sinners, when He created us with the ability to sin ?"

If He hadn’t created us with the ability to sin, then the first part of that question wouldn’t really matter (in this conversation, at least), now would it ?

How convenient that you choose to ignore the entire second half of that question, to justify your point.

One way to look at it is that God is not punishing us…we are punishing ourselves, by rejecting His offer of salvation. We have the ability to “faith” ourselves out of Hell, but many of us choose not to (out of anger, or pride, or various other human emotional ailments).

My answer to you was relevant, and did answer your question. It is my fault, if you did not understand it. I don’t know how I could explain it more…I have tried. It is obviously not a concept that I COMPLETELY understand, though I understand the basic principle of it.

Believe me, when I find the scripture, or have a viable Biblical explanation for it, you’ll be the first to know, Rust.

I have a lot of gall…and so do you. *smiles*

Digital_Savior:

I've been quite good. I believe I sent up to two emails to that address; perhaps there was a typo somewhere in the translation?

Well, rather than re-create any more confusion, I'll be bold. My IM name is "Honor of Volsung". Feel free to send a message if you see me floating online.

The Luther quote gave me an interesting interpretation. The priest says to Luther that the anger he claims to feel from God is actually anger towards God, suggesting what Freud said concerning projection - that we recognize in others what we would recognize in ourselves, if our attention was so inclined to introspect. From the religious perspective on this issue, this is the fundamental statement of Feuerbach and, later, of Nietzsche, adding that not only are the negative sentiments for which we feel victimized rooted in our own impulses against divine powers, but that the positive sentiments for which we should feel admiration towards man are also attributed to these same powers.

Any thoughts on this interpretation?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No...learn how to read.

The original question was: "Why does God judge us for being sinners,when He created us with the ability to sin ?"

The difference being? My question is more inclusive. The same would still apply to both questions as well.

quote:If He hadn’t created us with the ability to sin, then the first part of that question wouldn’t really matter (in this conversation, at least), now would it ?

It would because the underlying argument is that god is not benevolent.

quote:How convenient that you choose to ignore the entire second half of that question, to justify your point.

Care to point out what it changes? My statement would have been correct regardless of which version I chose. If you're so anal-retentive, then please by all means, read "Why does God judge us for being sinners, when He created us with the ability to sin ?" when I talk about the question.

quote:

One way to look at it is that God is not punishing us…we are punishing ourselves, by rejecting His offer of salvation. We have the ability to “faith” ourselves out of Hell, but many of us choose not to (out of anger, or pride, or various other human emotional ailments).

That doesn't answer the question, because I could be accepting the offer of salvation and the question would still be valid: god would still be judging those who he created as sinners in the first place.

Hence it is irrelevant if we accept the offer or not, god would still be judging sinners.

quote:My answer to you was relevant, and did answer your question. It is my fault, if you did not understand it. I don’t know how I could explain it more…I have tried. It is obviously not a concept that I COMPLETELY understand, though I understand the basic principle of it.

Sorry, but that is not an answer. You've yet to answer why god judges us, when he was the one who created us as sinners in the first place.

quote:

I have a lot of gall…and so do you. *smiles*

I liked how you offer no justification, and just act nonchalant.

"Hey! If I show indifference, then maybe, just maybe, nobody will notice I made a fool out of myself, and that I discredited any claim I had against Rust supposedly persecuting me!"

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-10-2005).]

ladyofthemyst@hotmail.com

I'll answer you tomorrow. *smiles*

*LAUGHS* !!!

I am anal-retentive ? Oh, Rust...please purchase a mirror, and study yourself in it...for at least a year.

By the "gall" comment, I was pointing out that you and I are not so different in our methods of posting.

Overly critical, analytical, and stubborn.

I don't see how you can hate me so much, for being so similar in approach. *laughs again*

I never make a fool of myself...unless I am ice-skating. *grins*

Can I just ask that you tone it down a little ? It's no secret that you know how to ruffle my feathers.

If you truly want to understand the way I see things (not in order to believe it), then I think you could approach it better.

If you don't, be quiet. (Is MGCBTSOOYG really a better, more enlightened place because you are in it ?)

When offering advice about "toning it down", please do remember it was you who offered the first attack in this thread.

Here, maybe you've forgotten already:

"Read it again, Rust...and stop TRYING to be the only bird flying north for the winter."

quote:Originally posted by gudis:

The only problem with this little parable is, you aren't a god.



And that proves what?

Pointing out that you are ever against the stream is offensive ?

Hmmm...remember when you called me a pretentious whore ?

Remember the numerous times you have directly said, and insinuated, that I am a moron ?

That I don't know how to read ? (yes, I have said that of you as well, but not for the same reasons. I wish you could read me for what I am really saying, which seems to be lost on no one else but you. That indicates to me that you are intentionally misunderstanding me.)

I shouldn't be talking to you at all. It's obvious you don't respect anyone, let alone women.

You have said plenty, and far more than anyone else on this thread, that is offensive, Rust.

I don't think my comment about you flying north was offensive in any way, shape, or form.

If you had understood it, you wouldn't have either.

Oh, and I wasn't offering advice.

I was asking nicely.

quote:Pointing out that you are ever against the stream is offensive ?

It is. You're not pointing it out as a favor. I didn't ask, "Hey DS, am I 'going against the stream'?". You mention it as an attack on my personality.

quote:Hmmm...remember when you called me a pretentious whore ?

Remember the numerous times you have directly said, and insinuated, that I am a moron ?

That I don't know how to read ?

Yes. And? That's why you don't see me asking for you to "tone it down" in the same thread I've said that!

quote:I shouldn't be talking to you at all. It's obvious you don't respect anyone, let alone women.

How dramatic. That I don't respect you does not mean I don't respect anyone. And your insinuation that I don't respect women is merely an ad-hominem attack, and generalization with no sort of evidence.

quote:You have said plenty, and far more than anyone else on this thread, that is offensive, Rust.

Where have I said otherwise? Once again, that is the exact same reason why you don't see me saying "tone it down please" in the same thread I've offered an insult! Your point is moot.

quote:I don't think my comment about you flying north was offensive in any way, shape, or form.

If you had understood it, you wouldn't have either.

Nobody asked you whether I "swim against the stream" or what have you. Hence, that you bring that without any cause means you offered it not as a compliment, but as an attack.

I didn't read the whole thread, so it might have been mentioned... but why didn't anyone mention the fact that, according to the O.T., Man was created with the freedom to sin but had received an explicit warning from God NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So Man, incited by the serpent, ate from the tree and thusly did sin.

That sin was the original one. Why would anyone blame God for Man's sinful state he has been in since ? All according to Holy Scripture.

Taking this into consideration, all those subtle reasonings and argumentations of you people don't really make sense.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That I don't know how to read ? (yes, I have said that of you as well, but not for the same reasons. I wish you could read me for what I am really saying, which seems to be lost on no one else but you. That indicates to me that you are intentionally misunderstanding me.)

He is, Digital_Savior, take it from me.

The reason I am intruding here because I have had the exact same experience with Rust. Wasn't that on the MLK thread in Humanities, Rust ? I think it was. It ended up, just as it does here and as I have seen elsewhere, as a maddening hair-splitting nagging without end in sight, and although I knew no argument of mine had actually been refuted, in the end I preferred to quit rather than wasting all my time on that B.S.

And Rust, while you are "offering" insults profusely and deliberately without seeing any harm in that, a relatively innocent and factual observation such as Digital_Savior's is to you offensive and ad-hominem, AND a personal attack to boot.

Hmm...who put the 'tree' there?

Hmm...who brought it to their attention?

Hmm...who made the serpent?

And....why do you think 'he' did it anyway?

----

Afterthought:

Who bears the guilt more....the 'serpent' or 'Adam and Eve'? Or....God even?

It appears that Adam and Eve did....why is that?



[This message has been edited by outcast (edited 01-10-2005).]

UNCUS, I don't think I could have said it better.

That is exactly what I was thinking (nagging without end in sight), but could not portray adequately.

It does seem that 1. there is no point to the argument after a few entries and 2. that no end is in sight.

It is also obvious that being "right" takes precedence over learning from each other.

I have seen him argue with you and Tyrant, and that's about it.

I am still trying to find the correlation between the three of us that Rust finds so attractive. *grins*

Sorry, Rust, but I think we're on to ya. (that was a joke, and is not intended to imply an insult.)

OUTCAST - Believe me...Satan has gotten his.

Guilt is not the factor to consider. It is responsibility...

And are you asking the first few questions to make a point, or to receive answers to them ?

Well, if you think about it, we're (supposedly) created to sin so god can save our collective asses. who the hell is god saving us to impress? Does he have a girlfriend?

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

He is, Digital_Savior, take it from me.

The reason I am intruding here because I have had the exact same experience with Rust. Wasn't that on the MLK thread in Humanities, Rust ? I think it was. It ended up, just as it does here and as I have seen elsewhere, as a maddening hair-splitting nagging without end in sight, and although I knew no argument of mine had actually been refuted, in the end I preferred to quit rather than wasting all my time on that B.S.

The reason you left the argument was because you couldn't back it up, and you've yet to do so. Care to start it up again? Please, explain to me how there being violence in Dr. King's marches means King was inciting them. I'd love to see you try.

quote:

And Rust, while you are "offering" insults profusely and deliberately without seeing any harm in that, a relatively innocent and factual observation such as Digital_Savior's is to you offensive and ad-hominem, AND a personal attack to boot.



Intruding in arguments usually means you'll look like a moron; it should come as no surprise that proved true in this case.

I don't have a problem with insults or attacks. I argue amidst them all the time. I do see some very delicious irony when a Christian does them. You see, a Christian is commanded by god to love his neighbors, I'm not. That I point out anything I see as an insult does not mean I'm offended by them, hardly; it means I'm pointing them to either myself, or to anyone else keeping track.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

I didn't read the whole thread, so it might have been mentioned... but why didn't anyone mention the fact that, according to the O.T., Man was created with the freedom to sin but had received an explicit warning from God NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So Man, incited by the serpent, ate from the tree and thusly did sin.

That sin was the original one. Why would anyone blame God for Man's sinful state he has been in since ? All according to Holy Scripture.

Taking this into consideration, all those subtle reasonings and argumentations of you people don't really make sense.

You didn't have to point out you didn't read, it's obvious from your argument you didn't.

One argument is, that god could have created us without the ability to sin, while still keeping free-will. Thus that he didn't means he is to blame.

How is creating us without the capacity to perform good and evil allowing us the free will to choose good or evil? That's like saying that a person who has his legs removed still has the freedom to independently walk, even though he clearly doesn't have that capacity, by virtue of his not having legs.

God doesn't exist, i don't know how stupid fucks could believe in something you don't see... amen

quote:Originally posted by iced_out21:

God doesn't exist, i don't know how stupid fucks could believe in something you don't see... amen



What about black holes (i.e. singularities) or the core of the earth. We have not seen those, but we know they exist from scientific evidence and reasoning.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

How is creating us without the capacity to perform good and evil allowing us the free will to choose good or evil? That's like saying that a person who has his legs removed still has the freedom to independently walk, even though he clearly doesn't have that capacity, by virtue of his not having legs.

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying.

I'm saying that god could have created us without the ability to sin, while still having free will. In other words, that he has the power to remove free will, while still keeping it. It sounds illogical, right? It does to me as well.

The problem is DS and extreme, among others, claim that the Christian god has the ability to do so; hence spawning this argument.

If he has the power to do so, and he deliberately chose not to, then he's no benevolent. He would be judging those he deliberlty chose to create as sinners, when he had the ability to not create them as sinners, and still keep free will.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-11-2005).]

Rust:

I would disagree with that sentiment, if it is indeed what DS and X say.

However, donning my Christian disguise in order to speak from the pulpit, I wouldn't agree with the conclusion you made:

If he has the power to do so, and he deliberately chose not to, then he's no benevolent. He would be judging those he deliberlty chose to create as sinners, when he had the ability to not create them as sinners, and still keep free will.

I think holding up a system of ethics and borders to make a relatively black-and-white behavioral code is not the characteristic of someone who's not benevolent, nor is it really a reflection of benevolence in any circumstance. It merely means that God has set forth a line between what's right and what's wrong, and desires souls that willingly choose right. The principle of free will is not a negation of absolute holy and evil - and I can't imagine the train of thought that could conclude that it is.

this is y i'm an athesis FUCK RELIGION

Oh, well, when you put it that way...

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Rust:

I would disagree with that sentiment, if it is indeed what DS and X say.

I'm glad to hear that.



quote:

I think holding up a system of ethics and borders to make a relatively black-and-white behavioral code is not the characteristic of someone who's not benevolent, nor is it really a reflection of benevolence in any circumstance. It merely means that God has set forth a line between what's right and what's wrong, and desires souls that willingly choose right.

The point isn't simply that he created a "behavioral code" as you put it. The point is that he punishes based on the code, when, if we take their argument as correct, god could have made it so we didn't have to break that code, but still have free will.

He deliberately chose to judge us, when he could have easily chosen not to, when he could have easily made it so that he didn't even have to judge us in the first place, when we didn't even have to break those codes! That he even let the possibility of me burning in hell, when he could have easily stopped it while still keeping free will, means that he's not all-loving and that he's not benevolent.

A benevolent being wouldn't choose to send his hell, would he? Because that's what it boils down to: he deliberately chose to send me to hell, if he had the choice not to, and decided against it.

quote:

The principle of free will is not a negation of absolute holy and evil - and I can't imagine the train of thought that could conclude that it is.

Nobody is denying absolute evil or holiness based on free will.

Sorry, I was not on for some time and completly missed this thread.

I am also FAR to lazy to read all 1000 of the replies. I'll be sure to jump up on the next one

My philisophical apologies

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You didn't have to point out you didn't read, it's obvious from your argument you didn't.

One argument is, that god could have created us without the ability to sin, while still keeping free-will. Thus that he didn't means he is to blame.

Did anyone use that argument ? Please point it out to me. Otherwise, I will be forced to assume you made it up on the spot just to spite me, which I am tempted to do.

In case someone DID use this argument, I want to point out it is absolutely silly, as free will implies the ability to sin (which, according to Scripture, Man did have, hence God's warning) and being able to choose not to.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

Did anyone use that argument ? Please point it out to me. Otherwise, I will be forced to assume you made it up on the spot just to spite me, which I am tempted to do.

My mistake. There are about 3 threads dealing with the same question, and hence I assumed that: 1. Someone would have said that here. 2. That because DS said this was an "off shoot" of another thread, you would have read that thread in order to understand it. Even then your reply still showed your inability to read, because what you're arguing has nothing to do with the argument. Please see below:

quote:

In case someone DID use this argument, I want to point out it is absolutely silly, as free will implies the ability to sin (which, according to Scripture, Man did have, hence God's warning) and being able to choose not to.

We having the ability to not sin is irrelevant, because what is at deabte is god deliberately choosing to create us with the ability to sin, when he could have chosen not to.

According to DS he had that ability (if not he wouldn't be omnipotent) and thus making him not benelovent, if he chose to make us sinners, when he had the ability not to, and moreover, had the ability to keep free will while doing so.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-12-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by iced_out21:

God doesn't exist, i don't know how stupid fucks could believe in something you don't see... amen

I don't know how you could consider yourself intelligent (the opposite of "stupid fuck") when you can't comprehend the existence of something you cannot see...

Ok, Rust...

What if God is truly not benevolent ?

Does that remove His Godship ?

I am truly asking. You keep making this point, as though it justifies your belief that I am either stupid for following a God that is not benevolent, or that there is no God altogether.

You have all kinds of opinions about a God you don't believe exists, so I am just curious what you would think of Him if He does exist, using your "parameters" (not benevolent, etc.).

quote:Originally posted by outcast:

Actually I think the use of the word 'consent' by Tyrant was a good one. Not that we would have 'control' over God...but that God has given us 'control' over ourselves to choose to govern ourselves in accordance of his will -or- outside of his will. In this we have a choice, wouldn't you say?





Consent denotes permission.

God doesn't need our permission to offer us salvation. He has already offered it. We merely need to accept it, or reject it.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

Sorry, I was not on for some time and completly missed this thread.

I am also FAR to lazy to read all 1000 of the replies. I'll be sure to jump up on the next one

My philisophical apologies

Don't be lazy !

This entire thread was dedicated to you, and YOUR question !

Come on...*sighs*

i'm going to church tonight, i can ask the question and come back with a 'real answer'

but the way i see it. God gave us free will. The ultimate gift. Imagine a life where we could do nothing but what was 'right'. That's right, you can't comprhend it. Just like you can't measure eternity. We have the choice to sin, sure, we will sin naturally. Like comit adultery and all that jazz. But the difference is recognizing that what we have done is immoral, and confessing it and seeking forgiveness from God.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ok, Rust...

What if God is truly not benevolent ?

Does that remove His Godship ?



I am truly asking. You keep making this point, as though it justifies your belief that I am either stupid for following a God that is not benevolent, or that there is no God altogether.

It wouldn't remove his godship. It would on the other hand, serve to remove any credence Christianity has, or that of any other religion that thinks similarly. That's my only goal.

quote:

You have all kinds of opinions about a God you don't believe exists, so I am just curious what you would think of Him if He does exist, using your "parameters" (not benevolent, etc.).

Those aren't my parameters. You see there are two possible (and logical) answers, he could either not be omnipotent, or not benevolent.

If he's malevolent, then I'd say he's an asshole. If he's not omnipotent, then I wouldn't mind, I wouldn't think less or more of him; I'd only be surprised.

quote:It wouldn't remove his godship. It would on the other hand, serve to remove any credence Christianity has, or that of any other religion that thinks similarly. That's my only goal.

Ah...your goal is revealed. *feigns shock* ;-)

Why are you hellbent on removing religious credence ?

Does it really affect you so greatly (religion), that you have to spend all your time trying to discredit it ?

No one will spend their life trying to keep you from eating; something you enjoy, and know that you must do in order to survive.

It is the same with God, for some people.

And why is it that only Christianity, and its derivatives, prompt you to attack them ?

It doesn't strike you as odd in the least bit that this is the flavor you have chosen to spit out ?

quote:Those aren't my parameters. You see there are two possible (and logical) answers, he could either not be omnipotent, or not benevolent.

If he's malevolent, then I'd say he's an asshole. If he's not omnipotent, then I wouldn't mind, I wouldn't think less or more of him; I'd only be surprised.

Logic according to Rust ?

Is it impossible for you to see outside of yourself...and consider a logic that you cannot understand ? Though it is possible to conceive of the notion, it is not possible to understand it ?

You set boundaries on God by saying that there are only two humanly logical possibilities.

You also fail to see that by your own logic, you contradict yourself.

You had said in an earlier post that if God was omnipotent that He would have the ability to create us not only with free will, but free of sin. As a result, He would have no need to judge us.

But if He were omnipotent, He could be both benevolent, and omnipotent at the same time. Whose to say He didn't "create" omnipotence ?

He could be anything He wanted...including benevolent AND malevolent, at the same time.

I think it too scary to say that God is not omnipotent. I could only serve a perfect, righteous God. Anything else would be...human.

I agree...if He's malevolent, then yes. He's a jerk. And if that's the case, I would drop my allegiance to Him right now. I'd take Hell over servitude and reverence for a God that doesn't care enough about His creation to keep His spite to Himself.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Why are you hellbent on removing religious credence ?

Does it really affect you so greatly (religion), that you have to spend all your time trying to discredit it ?

Yes, it does. Through out history it has been used as a control method, a way to keep masses ignorant, it has also slowed down scientific progress, through direct persecutions of scientists, or scientific practices, and through the general apathy theists generally have towards Science. I don't like that.

The relevant example today would be the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in schools and hampering of stem cell research



quote:

And why is it that only Christianity, and its derivatives, prompt you to attack them ?

Who said it's only Christianity?

That the vast majority of my replies are oriented at the Christian faith means only that:

1. There are more Christians on totse (in the Internet in general); which then increases the chances of a Christianity-oriented argument.

2. That I know more about Christianity than other religions, and thus I am more capable of arguing against it.

quote:You also fail to see that by your own logic, you contradict yourself.

You had said in an earlier post that if God was omnipotent that He would have the ability to create us not only with free will, but free of sin. As a result, He would have no need to judge us.

But if He were omnipotent, He could be both benevolent, and omnipotent at the same time. Whose to say He didn't "create" omnipotence ?

He being benevolent and malevolent at the same times has nothing to do our human perception of what is good and what is bad. Nor does it refute the fact that he would have been deliberately sending us to hell, if he chose to create us as sinners when he could have done other wise. If he did that, then he being benevolent as well looses all meaning, it would be a non-issue.

Rust:

Yes, it does. Through out history it has been used as a control method, a way to keep masses ignorant, it has also slowed down scientific progress, through direct persecutions of scientists, or scientific practices, and through the general apathy theists generally have towards Science. I don't like that.

So Science is your God.

The relevant example today would be the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in schools and hampering of stem cell research

The only time I've ever heard the term "Intelligent Design" was in a personal conversation with a good friend of mine, completely unrelated to school.

He being benevolent and malevolent at the same times has nothing to do our human perception of what is good and what is bad. Nor does it refute the fact that he would have been deliberately sending us to hell, if he chose to create us as sinners when he could have done other wise. If he did that, then he being benevolent as well looses all meaning, it would be a non-issue.

Your father made rules in your house when you were a child and enforced them when necessary. Breaking the rules of the house necessitated punishment. Is this act a negation of paternal love?

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



So Science is your God.

Define "god".

quote:

The only time I've ever heard the term "Intelligent Design" was in a personal conversation with a good friend of mine, completely unrelated to school.

Then you haven't kept up with the news.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Intelligent+design+schools&spell=1



quote:

Your father made rules in your house when you were a child and enforced them when necessary. Breaking the rules of the house necessitated punishment. Is this act a negation of paternal love?

Punishing me when he deliberately created the scenario for me to break those very rules, and when those rules are of no other purpose other than his whim, is certainly not love.

Further more, benevolence has a more strict criteria of evaluation than "paternal love". Benevolence is outright refuted when he has the ability to not create me as a sinner, and he deliberately chose not to.

Rust:

Define "god".

The guiding principle by which you take your every breath, and to which you dedicate your life.

Then you haven't kept up with the news.

Most of those links describe intelligent design as an offered alternative, probably out of respect for religious students and a desire to keep the common biology class from erupting into a theological debate. This does not hamper the taught science in any way.

Punishing me when he deliberately created the scenario for me to break those very rules, and when those rules are of no other purpose than his whim, is certainly not love.

A five year old automatically wants a cookie for breakfast. The father decides that a cookie for breakfast is not what he wants the child to have, and tells him that the rule is that he cannot have a cookie for breakfast. He deliberately created the scenario for the child to break the rules if he were to succumb to the desires he already has. From the child's perspective, these rules are of no other purpose other than his whim.

How is this still not love?

Further more, benevolence has a more strict criteria of evaluation than "paternal love". Benevolence is outright refuted when he has the ability to not create me as a sinner, and he deliberately chose not to.

For the Christian record, we were created sinless, but we, in the respective forms of Adam and Eve, separated ourselves from God by disobeying him.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



The guiding principle by which you take your every breath, and to which you dedicate your life.

Then there would be no point in using the word "god" when "guiding principle" or, "set of ideals" would do. It serves only to complicate the situation given the mainstream identification of what is "god".

quote:

Most of those links describe intelligent design as an offered alternative, probably out of respect for religious students and a desire to keep the common biology class from erupting into a theological debate. This does not hamper the taught science in any way.

You may not see it as hampering Science, but I do. The moment someone even remotely believes "Intelligent Design" that means they've thrown the scientific method out the window. That does not serve Science.

quote:

A five year old automatically wants a cookie for breakfast. The father decides that a cookie for breakfast is not what he wants the child to have, and tells him that the rule is that he cannot have a cookie for breakfast. He deliberately created the scenario for the child to break the rules if he were to succumb to the desires he already has. From the child's perspective, these rules are of no other purpose other than his whim.

How is this still not love?

Your analogy does not work because:

1. It fails to mention is that the cookie was deliberately placed there by the father.

2. That the father knew the child would want the cookie before even placing the cookie.

3. That it presupposes that eating the cookie would have some negative effect. While it would in real life ("His teeth will rot", "Sugar is bad for his health" etc.) the scenario calls for something that causes no other risks besides those that the father willed to happen.

If the father knew his child would ask for the cookie, if the father deliberately bought the cookie already knowing this, and if eating the cookie would cause absolutely no ill-effects other than those the father wants to happen; then denying that cookie when that is the wish of your child is certainly not love.

quote:

For the Christian record, we were created sinless, but we, in the respective forms of Adam and Eve, separated ourselves from God by disobeying him.

The point would still stand for them...

He deliberately created the scenario for them to sin. He knew of this scenario an infinite amount of time before it even came about, and he had the chance to stop this scenario, while still keeping free will. He did not choose to stop it, but for it to continue. That is not benevolence.

This entire discussion concerning 'free' will is based on the presupposition that our will, or our ability to make choices, is actually 'free', or unlimited in its scope of outcomes. Since we are only human beings, we are limited in the options for outcome in any given scenario, therefore though we have the ability to make choices, those decisions are not completely 'free' or unrestrained.

Example: When we move from one location to another, we have alot of options for transportation, i.e. car, bus, train, bicycle, walking, running, etc. As a normal human being, we do not yet have to option to instantaneously transport ourselves, or to fly by flapping our arms. Therefore, although we are able to choose between various options of moving, those choices are limited in scope.

Rust:

Then there would be no point in using the word "god" when "guiding principle" or, "set of ideals" would do. It serves only to complicate the situation given the mainstream identification of what is "god".

Except that you sublimate the significance of Science to the point of divinity.

You may not see it as hampering Science, but I do. The moment someone even remotely believes "Intelligent Design" that means they've thrown the scientific method out the window. That does not serve Science.

So Science is your God.

If the father knew his child would ask for the cookie, if the father deliberately bought the cookie already knowing this, and if eating the cookie would cause absolutely no ill-effects other than those the father wants to happen; then denying that cookie when that is the wish of your child is certainly not love.

So, if the father, who created the child, does not bow to the whims of the child, he does not love him?

That, for some reason, evoked the image of a 17-year-old brat that expects her parents to keep a financial safety net beneath her at all times. Why the hell should God concern himself with you in death if you didn't concern yourself with him in life?

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

-Matthew 7:22-23

He deliberately created the scenario for them to sin. He knew of this scenario an infinite amount of time before it even came about, and he had the change to stop this scenario, while still keeping free will. He did not choose to stop it, but for it to continue. That is not benevolence.

Of course he chose not to stop it. I'd have less respect for God if he eliminated all notions of good and evil by admonishing will, if he shielding me from the consequences of my actions, and by offering an opportunity to live my life justly and in the direction of consecrated holiness.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



Except that you sublimate the significance of Science to the point of divinity.

I do not consider Science to be infallible. Far from it. I do not consider it omnipotent, or omniscient,infinite or ever present, nor do I consider it immutable; all of which are characteristics commonly used to describe what is divine.

Saying that I deify Science would either be stretching the truth, or of no importance since it would actually serve as a compliment.

quote:

So Science is your God.

Oh no! You've "caught" me believing in a god!

Excuse the sarcasm, but that's the only thing that comes to mind when you say this.

Once again, if by god you mean "guiding principle" then you just have another word to signify just that, "guiding principle".

quote:

So, if the father, who created the child, does not bow to the whims of the child, he does not love him?

Yes. That he doesn't give what his child desires, when there would be no consequences, definitely does not show any sign of love.

quote:

That, for some reason, evoked the image of a 17-year-old brat that expects her parents to keep a financial safety net beneath her at all times.

A bad analogy again. There would be consequences consequences for the child if the parent created this "financial safety net". Once again, in order for it to be a good analogy, there cannot be any consequences other than what the parent willed on himself or the child.

quote:

Why the hell should God concern himself with you in death if you didn't concern yourself with him in life?

We're debating the Christian allegations, not what I would like for god to do, or what you think god would ideally be.

He would have to concern himself for him to be considered benevolent.

quote:

Of course he chose not to stop it. I'd have less respect for God if he eliminated all notions of good and evil by admonishing will, if he shielding me from the consequences of my actions, and by offering an opportunity to live my life justly and in the direction of consecrated holiness.

We're not debating what you or I would like god to be or do. We're debating what Christian allegations of what that god is.

quote:Originally posted by outcast:

Hmm...who put the 'tree' there?

Hmm...who brought it to their attention?

Hmm...who made the serpent?

And....why do you think 'he' did it anyway?

----

Afterthought:

Who bears the guilt more....the 'serpent' or 'Adam and Eve'? Or....God even?

It appears that Adam and Eve did....why is that?



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

OUTCAST - Believe me...Satan has gotten his.

Guilt is not the factor to consider. It is responsibility...

And are you asking the first few questions to make a point, or to receive answers to them ?

I just found your response today. The answer is....both.

Oh...and responsibility was my point actually...

Someone once expressed the opinion that Jesus came to take on responsibility for the sin that was created. [of course that requires the belief that Jesus WAS/IS God.]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

...He deliberately created the scenario for the child to break the rules if he were to succumb to the desires he already has. From the child's perspective, these rules are of no other purpose other than his whim.

How is this still not love?



The father in this situation did not build his child from scratch. Your "god" wants us to deny our natural tendencies, that he supposedly created us with. Either that or blame them on another of his creations that turned on him.

That even the high angels would rebel against your god says alot in itself.

Could it be your god is merely an egregore,

and his followers want to make him the creator?

Rust:

Two main points of dissension:

1. Your sublimation of Science to religious fanaticism;

2. Your ultimate definition of benevolence.

A religion does not need to contain an infallibe, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, or ever-present god. A religion is a value system by and against which the world's mechanics are judged, and for which a man is prepared to struggle. You're a few VC short of the Tet Offensive on that last one. Thus, it is completely obvious that Science is your God.

Now, your definition of benevolence indicates that God, if genuinely benevolent by Christian standards, should do all things for the indiscriminate salvation of human beings, including those who chose not to follow the guidelines he set forth to understand the world. This is simply an irrational sentiment. God's love is unconditional; God's sense of justice according to the laws of the world he created before humans simply is not. He has set a notion of what is good and what is evil onto the world. He has already shown people what is good, how to be good, and how to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven. The rest is up to the individual.

The indiscriminate salvation of mankind would KEEP him from being benevolent, as he would clearly show little concern for whether or not men lead good lives.

Viraljimmy:

The father in this situation did not build his child from scratch. Your "god" wants us to deny our natural tendencies, that he supposedly created us with. Either that or blame them on another of his creations that turned on him.

That even the high angels would rebel against your god says alot in itself.

He's not my God. I'm just arguing on his behalf, playing the ironically proverbial "Devil's advocate."

And, for the record, to what 'natural tendencies' would you be referring?

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Rust:

Two main points of dissension:

1. Your sublimation of Science to religious fanaticism;

2. Your ultimate definition of benevolence.

A religion does not need to contain an infallible, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, or ever-present god. A religion is a value system by and against which the world's mechanics are judged, and for which a man is prepared to struggle. You're a few VC short of the Tet Offensive on that last one. Thus, it is completely obvious that Science is your God.

If "god" means "guiding principle" then, yes, I do believe in a god. Why you keep mentioning this, when we've already covered it, is beyond me. I must deduce that you have some sort of fetish for "catching" me believing in a "god".

Once again, by that definition I would believe in a god, but the usage of "god" would be a poor one given that it is completely off from the mainstream usage and thus would serve only to confuse; especially when there are other words and/or phrases that would mean the same and would not have the effect of confusing the public. Therefore the usage of "god" when describing my beliefs would only serve to confuse, or to satisfy a childish urge to "catch" me believing in a god.



quote:

Now, your definition of benevolence indicates that God, if genuinely benevolent by Christian standards, should do all things for the indiscriminate salvation of human beings, including those who chose not to follow the guidelines he set forth to understand the world. This is simply an irrational sentiment.

The problem is the creation of those guidelines in the first place! There would be no need for the ability for people to "choose not to follow the guidelines he set forth. That he lets this open, when he knew people were going to choose this path, means he deliberately sent people to hell, and thus is not benevolent.

quote:

God's love is unconditional; God's sense of justice according to the laws of the world he created before humans simply is not. He has set a notion of what is good and what is evil onto the world. He has already shown people what is good, how to be good, and how to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven. The rest is up to the individual.

Sorry, but that's not what benevolence constitutes. If he deliberately chose to even create the possibility for hell, when he could have easily chosen not to, that means he did not act in a kind way, and thus is not benevolent.

quote:

The indiscriminate salvation of mankind would KEEP him from being benevolent, as he would clearly show little concern for whether or not men lead good lives.

No, because he could have easily made it for all men to lead good lives, and at the same time keep free will. Remember?

---

Sorry Tyrant. But the ability for the Christian god to do anything (an ability DS and X give to the Christian god) even if it completely destroys logical thinking, means you will always be arguing a losing battle.

For example, even if you argue that punishment does not preclude benevolence, (which it does in this specific case), I could easily argue that god could have punished people, without that punishment being bad, and thus that he chose for it to be bad, means he's not benevolent.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-15-2005).]

OK, apparently you see evil as unnecessary, so let's try this from a different angle.

It is a common physical, psychological, and philosophical fact that, in order to recognize something as a particular thing, it must be provided with a contrast, correct?

Physically and metaphysically, a certain object cannot exist without something else other than that thing existing in relation to that original thing. A rock is only recognizable as a rock when you understand what a rock isn't.

Psychologically, this occurs in a recognition of difference between the identifying senses of "I" and "Not-I." In order to understand the "I," you must also recognize what is "Not-I."

Philosophically (and thus applicable to our condition), good cannot exist without evil. Before the time of Zarathustra, good and evil were simply acts, detached from moral origin. Only after the rise of Zoroastrianism was evil seen as a unique and separate entity from what is good.

Either way, in order for good to exist in the world, there must be a reciprocal evil. With the creation of a Thing, characterized as Good, it thus separates itself from the other parts of the universe which is not that Thing.

This is the nature of evil - the background against which good has any purpose to exist at all.

If we ignore the omnipotence afforded to god by DS and X, then you'd have a very strong argument. But the whole point is debating the Christian claims about god, that being, that he is omnipotent and can completely destroy logic.

With that ability, evil would not be a necessity, as you are arguing in your case, because that omnipotent being can chose for it not to exist. Thus, that he choses to allow it, means that he is not benevolent.

QUOTE ]Originally posted by Rust:

With that ability, evil would not be a necessity, as you are arguing in your case, because that omnipotent being can chose for it not to exist.

Yes, He can choose for evil to exist or not exist.

Thus, that he choses to allow it, means that he is not benevolent. /QUOTE

Or it means that He has a purpose for evil.

<<mine speculation>>> Perhaps as a sieve.

Let me ask you Rust, can we can make choices? Or do we only percieve that we make choices?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Or it means that He has a purpose for evil.

His purposes are irrelevant to this argument. Regardless of what his purposes are, if deliberately allows for evil to exist, when he need not to, then he is not benevolent.

quote:

Let me ask you Rust, can we can make choices? Or do we only percieve that we make choices?

We can make choices.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

We can make choices.





How can you know for sure? Prove it please.

I can't. You asked me a question and I responded with my belief.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I can't. You asked me a question and I responded with my belief.





So you agree that there are some things that are true because we believe them to be true, but are not able to be proven logically, due to the limitations of human logic?

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:



So you agree that there are some things that are true because we believe them to be true, but are not able to be proven logically, due to the limitations of human logic?

They aren't "true", they are commonly accepted as such. There's a difference. But, yes, and I can see what you are going with this.

The difference between this, and believing in a god, is that this cannot be proved correct. It is impossible to somehow prove that my actions are either out of my own free will, or that they are determined by another being (i.e.god or "fate"/"destiny"). Therefore, both possible answers are reasonable given the evidence, or lack there of.

Howoever, this is not true for the scenario of a god. It is completely possible for a god to prove himself. That he does not do so, and that there is another, more reasonable explanation, means that it is more logical to conclude that there isn't a god, as oppose to concluding that there is one.

P.S. It is not out of limitation of human logic, but out of current limitations of evidence.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Howoever, this is not true for the scenario of a god. It is completely possible for a god to prove himself. That he does not do so, and that there is another, more reasonable explanation, means that it is more logical to conclude that there isn't a god, as oppose to concluding that there is one.



By why must God conform to your requirements for personal evidence? If He is truly God, He can do or not do as He sees fit, within the confines of His nature. Perhaps He has revealed Himself to you in the past, and you either did not notice or ignored this fact, so He has decided to allow you to remain as you are, since you have the freedom to decide to reject Him.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

By why must God conform to your requirements for personal evidence?

If He is truly God, He can do or not do as He sees fit, within the confines of His nature. Perhaps He has revealed Himself to you in the past, and you either did not notice or ignored this fact, so He has decided to allow you to remain as you are, since you have the freedom to decide to reject Him.



The same could be said of (yes, that's right...) pink unicorns...

Maybe Pink Unicorns have revealed themselves unto you, and you have not noticed, or ignored them... Or how about the "Christianity-refuting-god", the god that has the power to refute Christianity in a simple bound! Maybe he revealed himself on to you, and you didn't notice, or decided to ignore it...

Sorry, but that's a terribly weak argument.

Why do the unicorns have to be pink?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

[B]This is an offshoot of another thread..

Some of you (Krispy, etc.) have been asking the question:

"Why does God judge us for being sinners, when He created us with the ability to sin ?"

ITs true. but why does he judge