Job II

[steamer]

Yahweh, according to the bible, occasionally makes a bet with Satan on how a man or perhaps even mankind will behave given certain conditions. Job was not told that he was a participant in the bet and if there were another bet, it should not be assumed that mankind would be told either.

Imagine a second bet, between Yahweh and Satan. In this bet Satan tells god that it is not Him that people love but his power. Even though the world is rife with rumors that Yahweh is all-loving, Satan bets Yahweh that if a book were to be written describing a barbaric and genocidal god but calling it Yahweh, that people would still love that god because of its power. Satan also bets that people will twist the very concepts of love and evil and justice so this god can be called good.

One wonders how it would be possible to trust this “word of god� considering the warnings in Job that Yahweh occasionally makes bets where the participants are merely uninformed pawns in a game. One wonders if the real test might be to reject the descriptions of a barbaric and genocidal evil-god because Yahweh is supposed to be all-loving. Perhaps failing this test is what decides eternal damnation.

It doesn’t really bother me that much that some folks believe in a god. What really bothers me is what they suppose the words love and justice to mean in relation to this god. Love and justice is any damn thing the god decides it is. In other words, these noble concepts lose all meaning.

[Paul Brand]

It doesn’t really bother me that much that some folks believe in a god. What really bothers me is what they suppose the words love and justice to mean in relation to this god. Love and justice is any damn thing the god decides it is. In other words, these noble concepts lose all meaning.

You can feel free to disagree with God about what is love and what is just. Just because God offered his own opinion, dosen't imply that these concepts lose meaning, even if you were to accept God as an authority.

How would you argue that these concepts lose meaning given that God decides what they are?

[steamer]

God is love.

An 8 year old child reaches the age of accountability, decides god is just as pretend as Santa Clause and in the next moment he is hit by a bus. Said god, instantly judges the kid and sends him to an eternity of screaming agony.

What does this God have to do with love?

Eight year old twins do everything together and are exactly equally guilty of the same number of wrong-doings. One decides to become a Christian and the other decides decides to become an atheist. So one prays for forgiveness and the other one tries to discover where his twins new invisible magic friend is. Splat...There's the bus. One twin to eternal ass-kissing bliss and the other to an eternity of screaming agony.

What does this God have to do with Justice?

If you answer this question, you will get a very good idea of how you twist the concepts of love and justice so you can claim your god has them.

[Paul Brand]

God is love.

An 8 year old child reaches the age of accountability, decides god is just as pretend as Santa Clause and in the next moment he is hit by a bus. Said god, instantly judges the kid and sends him to an eternity of screaming agony.

What does this God have to do with love?

Eight year old twins do everything together and are exactly equally guilty of the same number of wrong-doings. One decides to become a Christian and the other decides decides to become an atheist. So one prays for forgiveness and the other one tries to discover where his twins new invisible magic friend is. Splat...There's the bus. One twin to eternal ass-kissing bliss and the other to an eternity of screaming agony.

What does this God have to do with Justice?

If you answer this question, you will get a very good idea of how you twist the concepts of love and justice so you can claim your god has them.
1)You don't know what the eternal destiny would be for these twins, if they were to die as you suggested. Doing so and arguing against it, is guilty of the strawman fallacy.
2)The story is irrelevant to my point. You argued that because God gets to choose what is love and justice, they lose meaning because he alone chooses.
3)You still don't have to agree with God's choice of definitions. They very well may appear unjust to you, according to your contrary definition of justice. This may be obvious, but it is relevant.
4)Can you clarify. Is the real issue relating to the loss of meaning relating to one person getting to choose, or whether you agree with the moral character of the person who does get to choose? I'm no longer sure which premise you are defending.

[steamer]

1)You don't know what the eternal destiny would be for these twins, if they were to die as you suggested. Doing so and arguing against it, is guilty of the strawman fallacy.

This is believed by many Christians and much theology. What is your view of what happens to children that die without accepting Christ after they reach the age of accountability? What I know about the actions of a being I consider to be imaginary are of no consequence. How is my description of Christian doctrine faulty? How does it differ from your view? Perhaps your view is the strawman.


2)The story is irrelevant to my point. You argued that because God gets to choose what is love and justice, they lose meaning because he alone chooses.

If you would call the god in the story just, then the word justice has become meaningless to you. If you call the actions of the god love, then to you the words have no meaning.


3)You still don't have to agree with God's choice of definitions. They very well may appear unjust to you, according to your contrary definition of justice. This may be obvious, but it is relevant.

In my view there is no god. There are people. Some people can think of love as eternally tormenting an 8 year old child and justice as arbitrarily saving another equally guilty child from the same fate even though there is no coherent reason that either be eternally tormented.


4)Can you clarify. Is the real issue relating to the loss of meaning relating to one person getting to choose, or whether you agree with the moral character of the person who does get to choose? I'm no longer sure which premise you are defending.

Some people conclude that there is an all-loving god that tortures people. If this is love, then what is hate?
Some people conclude that there is justice when one person escapes justice while another person suffers justice. If this is justice, what is injustice?

[Paul Brand]

This is believed by many Christians and much theology. What is your view of what happens to children that die without accepting Christ after they reach the age of accountability? First of all, I don't think there is a specific age of accountability. And I don't know what happens to unaccountable children when they die. I don't think the Scriptures are clear on that issue. I sort of like the idea of accountability, but in my opinion, it would come early on for some people, and possible never for others. And regarding those who die who have not reached accountability, I do not offer speculation as to God's actions. What I know about the actions of a being I consider to be imaginary are of no consequence. How is my description of Christian doctrine faulty? How does it differ from your view? Perhaps your view is the strawman.If I had a view, it might be a strawman. Currently, I don't hold any firm position. The only thing I hold to is that God is just in his judgment of children. Seeing that there are different views of the eternal status of dead children, you would only be arguing against one form of Christianity, and not Christianity in general (just to clarify the implications of this topic).


If you would call the god in the story just, then the word justice has become meaningless to you. If you call the actions of the god love, then to you the words have no meaning.I think the words you speak of have rather arbitrary definitions. I might not like your sense of justice, and you might not like mine. There is no universal objective mode of justice. Love, the same thing. We may very well disagree as to what love is. But, if I may defend God here, I do believe that he loves everyone, and gives everyone a fair chance to receive his love. God cannot be responsible for the fate of someone who freely and knowingly rejects his free gift.

In my view there is no god. There are people. Some people can think of love as eternally tormenting an 8 year old childI don't think anyone thinks this is love, though some people do think this is just. and justice as arbitrarily saving another equally guilty child from the same fate even though there is no coherent reason that either be eternally tormented.The given reason for the difference is that one received God's forgiveness and the other rejected God. In my own opinion, a person is not sentenced to eternal torment for simply not knowing that there was this free gift. Hell is a place for those who knowingly rebel against God, and reject His Son.



Some people conclude that there is an all-loving god that tortures people. If this is love, then what is hate? Love is not forced upon. It is received. Tortuing is not love. The offering of eternal redemption is love.

[steamer]

First of all, I don't think there is a specific age of accountability. And I don't know what happens to unaccountable children when they die.

The question was ... What happens to children that die without accepting Christ after they reach the age of accountability?


The only thing I hold to is that God is just in his judgment of children. Seeing that there are different views of the eternal status of dead children, you would only be arguing against one form of Christianity, and not Christianity in general (just to clarify the implications of this topic).

Christian doctrine implies that at some point god will hold children accountable for their decision not to accept Christ. That some 8 year olds might be held accountable seems plausible. The assumption we are using is that the child is accountable and many Christians think that the childs eternal torment in hell is something that an all-loving god could do.


I think the words you speak of have rather arbitrary definitions. I might not like your sense of justice, and you might not like mine. There is no universal objective mode of justice. Love, the same thing. We may very well disagree as to what love is. But, if I may defend God here, I do believe that he loves everyone, and gives everyone a fair chance to receive his love. God cannot be responsible for the fate of someone who freely and knowingly rejects his free gift.

If love or justice can be stretched to the point where it can include eternal torment of any creature then it has already been mutilated beyond recognition.

If there is a god, I accept the free gift as long as it doesn't suck. Ok, at least I'm going to heaven. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any such thing as a god so it's difficult take such an offer seriously. If you were as honest as an atheist, you might say the same thing. I honestly do not believe there is any free gift or invisible magic god to reject.


I don't think anyone thinks this is love, though some people do think this is just. The given reason for the difference is that one received God's forgiveness and the other rejected God. In my own opinion, a person is not sentenced to eternal torment for simply not knowing that there was this free gift. Hell is a place for those who knowingly rebel against God, and reject His Son.

An all-loving god cannot do something that is not loving.

There is no son, no gift and no god to reject. These things are as real to me as the invisible dragon dancing on your head. I feel absolutley justified in saying I have no more evidence for the god than the dragon.

The Christian description of god is something I reject. I consider it evil, partly because it allows people to think that eternal torment can be either love or justice.


Love is not forced upon. It is received. Tortuing is not love. The offering of eternal redemption is love.

Eternal redemption from what? The torment insisted upon by the same god that will rescue you? Is it love if I set your house on fire and offer to save you if you claim belief x, but not belief y?

[Paul Brand]

The question was ... What happens to children that die without accepting Christ after they reach the age of accountability? Yes, and I answered your question. What pat of my answer did you not like?



Christian doctrine implies that at some point god will hold children accountable for their decision not to accept Christ. That some 8 year olds might be held accountable seems plausible. The assumption we are using is that the child is accountable and many Christians think that the childs eternal torment in hell is something that an all-loving god could do.He could do that. In God's mind, rebelling against him is a crime of infinite magnitude. Feel free to disagree with him.

If love or justice can be stretched to the point where it can include eternal torment of any creature then it has already been mutilated beyond recognition.First of all, when we are talking about eternal torment, we are talking about the issue of justice, not love. As I said beore, feel free to disagree with God.

If there is a god, I accept the free gift as long as it doesn't suck. Ok, at least I'm going to heaven. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any such thing as a god so it's difficult take such an offer seriously. If you were as honest as an atheist, you might say the same thing. You are not only honest, but pretty arrogant to think you know how honest I am. I honestly do not believe there is any free gift or invisible magic god to reject.Fine. You won't be accountable for what you don't believe in.

An all-loving god cannot do something that is not loving.Two ways I can approach this. 1)You don't know what all-loving means. 2)Love cannot be coerced upon. So it would be possible for God to do something that is not loving. In order for God to love, there needs to be someone to receive that love. If the love is not received, it cannot be given. I thought I explained this in my last post.

There is no son, no gift and no god to reject. These things are as real to me as the invisible dragon dancing on your head. I feel absolutley justified in saying I have no more evidence for the god than the dragon.Perhaps you really don't believe.

The Christian description of god is something I reject. I consider it evil, partly because it allows people to think that eternal torment can be either love or justice.I guess you missed my last post where I suggested to you that no one thinks that eternal torment is a form of love. As far as I'm concerned you are only arguing against a strawman.



Eternal redemption from what? Separation from God. The torment insisted upon by the same god that will rescue you? Is it love if I set your house on fire and offer to save you if you claim belief x, but not belief y?I don't believe that is analogous. God doesn't condemn mankind so that he can save it. He condemns it because of its evil.

[steamer]

Yes, and I answered your question. What pat of my answer did you not like?

I don't see where you answered the question, except finally below.


He could do that. In God's mind, rebelling against him is a crime of infinite magnitude. Feel free to disagree with him.

So you also believe that the word love can include the eternal torment of an 8 year old child. I rest my case. Some Christians have lost the very concept of what can and cannot be called love. I do not disagree with any gods. I disagree with you and your idea that love can ever include the eternal punishment of any creature.


First of all, when we are talking about eternal torment, we are talking about the issue of justice, not love. As I said beore, feel free to disagree with God.

Anything an all-loving god does must be out of love. Anything a just god does must be just. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any god. I am disagreeing with you and your idea that love and justice can ever include eternal torment of any creature.


You are not only honest, but pretty arrogant to think you know how honest I am. Fine. You won't be accountable for what you don't believe in.

I didn't imply that you weren't as honest as an atheist.


Two ways I can approach this. 1)You don't know what all-loving means. 2)Love cannot be coerced upon. So it would be possible for God to do something that is not loving. In order for God to love, there needs to be someone to receive that love. If the love is not received, it cannot be given. I thought I explained this in my last post.

This makes sense to you? It is crap, you know. I can love anyone at all without even telling them. If I begin to torture you, why would you even bother to call it a loving act?


I guess you missed my last post where I suggested to you that no one thinks that eternal torment is a form of love. As far as I'm concerned you are only arguing against a strawman.

You are quite right. It must be a strawman I argue against, because no being that could create and implement the concept of hell could be called either all-loving or just. It could only be called a monster. I am very glad it is a strawgod after all. Still we have the problem that there are actual people that can and do warp the idea of love and justice to such extremes that even this monsterous strawgod should be able to claim it.


Separation from God. I don't believe that is analogous. God doesn't condemn mankind so that he can save it. He condemns it because of its evil.

If the god you describe exists, I can not imagine any greater curse than that you should join it, except perhaps that you should receive it's "love" or its "justice". Separation from it would be the blessing.

[Paul Brand]

Steamer, I have stated multiple times that the concept of love is not related to torment, yet you keep attributing that to my own belief. I guess there is no sense in having this conversation, it was kind of getting boring anyway.

[Hedshaker]

God cannot be responsible for the fate of someone who freely and knowingly rejects his free gift.

So let's get this straight. We give up our rational minds and become sniveling slaves to the blood thirsty tyrant god of the OT, and in return we get the "free gift" of not burning in hell for eternity?

Golly, I wonder what a gift we have to pay for entails :confused:

Orbit

[Angrillori]

1)You don't know what the eternal destiny would be for these twins, if they were to die as you suggested. Doing so and arguing against it, is guilty of the strawman fallacy.
2)The story is irrelevant to my point. You argued that because God gets to choose what is love and justice, they lose meaning because he alone chooses.

Except he doesn't. "Love" and "justice" are human words, in the English language, used to refer to specific concepts, of which the Biblical god displays none. Humans invented the english language and the words that it is composed of. Ergo, humans defined the words "love" and "justice," not god.

God might be described by many english words, but loving, and just are not them, based on the definitions those words were created to serve.

[K]

Paul Brand:

Love and justice are human words. They have meaning assigned by humans based on human experience.

If a human father treated his children the way it's claimed God treats His, would that be called loving? And it's especially important to keep in mind that if we really are so inferior to God in intellect and wisdom, the best comparison to use would be a father and his infant or toddler children.

What if the father hid so that most of his children never knew he existed and the ones that did could never agree on what he said or looked like?

What if some of the children had extremely painful but easily curable conditions, but the father withheld the cures to see how the babies reacted to extreme pain?

What if he capriciously lavished some with all kinds of gifts and starved others just to see if the ones who were rewarded would share?

What if he then richly rewarded those that had plenty simply because they acknowledged his existence while at the same time he tortured to death those with nothing who didn't love him (or even know he existed)?

What if this man fathered many, many children just so he could set up a test of these tykes? He freely admits that he devise the test and that this test will be failed by the vast majority of his kids. Those who pass will be greatly rewarded. Those who fail will be tortured mercilessly for the rest of their lives (since you don't believe God actively tortures, let's just say the father withholds food from the infants that fail until they starve to death).

You may believe that the father has the right to do these things (you'd definitely be in the minority), but you can't call these things love based on the definition of love. Therefore, you have no right to call it love when you claim that God does these same types of things. You may argue that God somehow has a right to do these things, but you can't call it love. It perverts the definition of love to the point where it becomes meaningless.

[Paul Brand]

So let's get this straight. We give up our rational minds and become sniveling slaves to the blood thirsty tyrant god of the OT, and in return we get the "free gift" of not burning in hell for eternity?

Golly, I wonder what a gift we have to pay for entails :confused:

OrbitSo you like to misrepresent people, eh? I'll add you to my ignore list.

[Paul Brand]

Except he doesn't. "Love" and "justice" are human words, in the English language, used to refer to specific concepts,yes they are of which the Biblical god displays none. I guess Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice, though he was sinless, doesn't count? He suffered and died in my place. I'm thankful for that, but you'd rather mock his sacrifice and spit at him while he's down. Humans invented the english language and the words that it is composed of. Ergo, humans defined the words "love" and "justice," not god. I really fail to see your point. Are you really arguing that it is logically impossible for this hypothetical God to not have his own sense of what "love" and "justice" are? That would surprise me.

God might be described by many english words, but loving, and just are not them, based on the definitions those words were created to serve.Love didn't originate with the English language. Surely you know that.

[Paul Brand]

Paul Brand:

Love and justice are human words. They have meaning assigned by humans based on human experience.Of course. What's your point?

If a human father treated his children the way it's claimed God treats His, would that be called loving? Huh? So you are saying that God should have rather kept his Son alive, and ignore humanity's need for redemption? Okay, but I disagree with you.And it's especially important to keep in mind that if we really are so inferior to God in intellect and wisdom, the best comparison to use would be a father and his infant or toddler children.I really don't see the connection like you apparently do.

What if the father hid so that most of his children never knew he existed and the ones that did could never agree on what he said or looked like?What does it matter what he looked like? Most Christians agree that was was said was recorded in the Gospels. I don't see your point.

What if some of the children had extremely painful but easily curable conditions, but the father withheld the cures to see how the babies reacted to extreme pain?I call strawman on that, and you know it.

What if he capriciously lavished some with all kinds of gifts and starved others just to see if the ones who were rewarded would share?See above.

What if he then richly rewarded those that had plenty simply because they acknowledged his existence while at the same time he tortured to death those with nothing who didn't love him (or even know he existed)?See above.

What if this man fathered many, many children just so he could set up a test of these tykes? He freely admits that he devise the test and that this test will be failed by the vast majority of his kids. Those who pass will be greatly rewarded. Those who fail will be tortured mercilessly for the rest of their lives (since you don't believe God actively tortures, let's just say the father withholds food from the infants that fail until they starve to death).See above.

You may believe that the father has the right to do these things (you'd definitely be in the minority), but you can't call these things love based on the definition of love.Why would I call these things love? Therefore, you have no right to call it love when you claim that God does these same types of things.That is not true. You may argue that God somehow has a right to do these things, but you can't call it love. God has the right to do as he pleases, and he can call it whatever he wants. It perverts the definition of love to the point where it becomes meaningless.Talking about perversion, how about how you perverted God's actions? Unbelievable.

[Hedshaker]

So you like to misrepresent people, eh? I'll add you to my ignore list.

You were the one who called it a "free gift", how am I misrepresenting anyone?

Altogether, hands over ears..... lalalalalalalala.... I can't hear you ;)

Orbit

[Solanalos]

Altogether, hands over ears..... lalalalalalalala.... I can't hear you ;)

Orbit


Man, you beat me to that one!


Hey Paul :jump: 1. Do you think love includes torture? 2. Do you think it's justice to punish a finite crime infinitely?

[Paul Brand]

Man, you beat me to that one!


Hey Paul :jump: 1. Do you think love includes torture? 2. Do you think it's justice to punish a finite crime infinitely?No and No.

[Gizmo]

God has the right to do as he pleases, and he can call it whatever he wants. .

Thus making the meaning of the word...well...meaningless - as was stated in the OP and which you argued against.

Giz.

[Paul Brand]

Thus making the meaning of the word...well...meaningless - as was stated in the OP and which you argued against.

Giz.
You have not demonstrated your argument.

Somehow you jumped from:
1)God can do whatever he wants
to
2)Whatever God decides to do is meaningless.

Try making an argument rather than stating your conclusion.

[Gizmo]

Not at all. I have jumped from.

1. [God can] call it whatever he wants.

to

2. that making the word meaningless.

For example: I could suddenly change from calling my computer a "computer" to calling it a "afghlkgjf". If i do that without informing you, the word is meaningless.

or another example would you like a lkgfhmgk?

Giz

[steamer]

Steamer, I have stated multiple times that the concept of love is not related to torment, yet you keep attributing that to my own belief. I guess there is no sense in having this conversation, it was kind of getting boring anyway.

And I have pointed out multiple times that your all-loving god is the one providing this "justice".

At any rate, thank you for illustrating the point of the OP. You would worship evil and do because the entity behind the evil has power. In your case, Satan would win the bet presented in the OP.

[Paul Brand]

Not at all. I have jumped from.

1. [God can] call it whatever he wants.

to

2. that making the word meaningless.

For example: I could suddenly change from calling my computer a "computer" to calling it a "afghlkgjf". If i do that without informing you, the word is meaningless.

or another example would you like a lkgfhmgk?

Giz
If you defined the word, "afghlkgjf", the word does become meaningful. There is plenty of detail regarding what love is in the Bible. In the Greek, the word is "agape" (there is also "philo" (brotherly love) and "eros" (sensual love), but those have different definitions of love). "Agape" love is defined in 1 Cor 13. Now try telling me that the word is meaningless.

[Paul Brand]

And I have pointed out multiple times that your all-loving god is the one providing this "justice".

At any rate, thank you for illustrating the point of the OP. You would worship evil and do because the entity behind the evil has power. In your case, Satan would win the bet presented in the OP.

I don't think you are being serious, nor have you supported your assertion.

[Gizmo]

If you defined the word, "afghlkgjf", the word does become meaningful. There is plenty of detail regarding what love is in the Bible. In the Greek, the word is "agape" (there is also "philo" (brotherly love) and "eros" (sensual love), but those have different definitions of love). "Agape" love is defined in 1 Cor 13. Now try telling me that the word is meaningless.

But God has not defined the word love or agape or philo or eros. The writers of the bible have used a word with an existing definition and the arguement is that the examples of gods 'agape' do not conform to the pre-existing definition or even the definition given in 1 Cor 13 which claims amongst other things that 'love makes no record of wrongs'

How can a god that 'keeps no record of wrongs' judge at all?

Giz.

[Paul Brand]

How can a god that 'keeps no record of wrongs' judge at all?

Giz.If God's love is received, there is no judgment.

Psalm 103:12 "as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us."

Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

[Paul Brand]

examples of gods 'agape' do not conform to the pre-existing definitionWhether or not there was a pre-existing definition is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that the word is defined. But if you would like to make an argument that a pre-existing definition negates the possibility for a meaningful new definition, go ahead, but I think you'd be alone with that assertion.

[Gizmo]

If God's love is received, there is no judgment.

But now you are asserting that love is conditional - this is contrary to 'Love never fails'. If I once received his love but no longer do, his love fails and he starts keeping track of my wrongs.

Psalm 103:12 "as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us."

Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

One of those transgressions presumably being my not receiving his love?

examples of gods 'agape' do not conform to the pre-existing definition

Whether or not there was a pre-existing definition is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that the word is defined. But if you would like to make an argument that a pre-existing definition negates the possibility for a meaningful new definition, go ahead, but I think you'd be alone with that assertion.

My argument was that gods definition of love conform neither to the preexisting definition or the definition given in 1 Cor 13 thereby indicating that I might be willing to accept a redefinition. However, when god starts to redefine the word whenever it suits his purposes without defining the (re)redefinition, the word becomes meaningless as I, the reader, lose track of what is meant by the word.

Giz,

[Paul Brand]

But now you are asserting that love is conditional - this is contrary to 'Love never fails'. If I once received his love but no longer do, his love fails and he starts keeping track of my wrongs. I don't think that is logical. It would be you that fails, it is your willingness to receive it that fails. I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp. If you were in need of my help in building your garage, and I helped, but you later rejected my help (even though my garage building skills are pretty good [hypothetically]), how am I responsible for that? Is my love for you failing, or your willingness to receive my love? Surely it is the latter.

One of those transgressions presumably being my not receiving his love?A rejection of God's love would be a transgression, in my opinion.

My argument was that gods definition of love conform neither to the preexisting definition or the definition given in 1 Cor 13 thereby indicating that I might be willing to accept a redefinition. However, when god starts to redefine the word whenever it suits his purposes without defining the (re)redefinition, the word becomes meaningless as I, the reader, lose track of what is meant by the word.I know what your argument was. I contend that God's love is consistent with 1 Cor 13, and I have responded adequately to your objections thus far. In my opinion, God's definition of love is unchanging. It is up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

[Solanalos]

No and No.

Thank you for answering my questions straightforward.


3. Does God send any beings to Hell?

[Gizmo]

I don't think that is logical. It would be you that fails, it is your willingness to receive it that fails. I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp. If you were in need of my help in building your garage, and I helped, but you later rejected my help (even though my garage building skills are pretty good [hypothetically]), how am I responsible for that? Is my love for you failing, or your willingness to receive my love? Surely it is the latter.

Love can exist in an unrequited state - granted it is oft more difficult to sustain but that isn't the point. The point IMO is that if God once loved me and then ceases to do so, the love has failed regardless of who's fault it might be. Or put another way, although it miight be considered my fault that the love failed it has nonetheless failed and under the 1 Cor 13 definition, this it cannot do.

A rejection of God's love would be a transgression, in my opinion.

Which God claims that He would remove from me as far as East is from West (Psalms) and which he would keep no record of (Cor) and remember no more (Isiah). So why would he, having so thoroughly absolved me, withdraw his love for this very reason?

I know what your argument was. I contend that God's love is consistent with 1 Cor 13, and I have responded adequately to your objections thus far. In my opinion, God's definition of love is unchanging. It is up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

You have responded in a way which you deem adequate (for which I am grateful) but not in a way in which I deem adequate, which is why, in an attempt to understand your position, I am attempting to clarify mine and to demonstrate, to the best of my ability, why I feel that the definition does not hold.

Giz.

[Paul Brand]

Gizmo,

Let's go back to 1 Cor 13. It says "Love never fails", followed by certain other things that will fail (prophecies, tongues, knowledge). So we don't have a whole lot of context to work with here. Anyway, what does it mean "love never fails". Never fails at what? It doesn't say "Love never fails at being received by others". That's not even implied. Does love exist at the giving end or the receiving end. In my opinion, love exists at the giving end. Love comes from the heart, not from the receiver. Whether the receiver receives lvoe or not doesn't affect what comes from the heart.

Anyway, since you are the one trying to show a contradiction, I'll leave it up to you to prove that "love never fails" necessarily implies "love never fails at being received".

[Paul Brand]

Thank you for answering my questions straightforward. You're welcome.


3. Does God send any beings to Hell?I think so.

Though, I'm not entirely sure what Hell is.

I take it, that it is a less than desirable place to be. I do not know for sure whether it is eternal or temporary (followed by anahiliation). Or even if it is eternal, whether there would be infinite or finite punishment. Revelation speaks about being judged according to your deeds, implying varying levels of judgment. Some suggest that the rejection of God is of infinite proportion becuase it is a crime against an infinite God. I'm not sure I agree.

[Gizmo]

Gizmo,

Let's go back to 1 Cor 13. It says "Love never fails", followed by certain other things that will fail (prophecies, tongues, knowledge). So we don't have a whole lot of context to work with here. Anyway, what does it mean "love never fails". Never fails at what? It doesn't say "Love never fails at being received by others". That's not even implied. Does love exist at the giving end or the receiving end. In my opinion, love exists at the giving end. Love comes from the heart, not from the receiver. Whether the receiver receives lvoe or not doesn't affect what comes from the heart.

Anyway, since you are the one trying to show a contradiction, I'll leave it up to you to prove that "love never fails" necessarily implies "love never fails at being received".

I think you have misunderstood me. I am contending that the love has failed at the giving (God's) end if he withdraws that love. He must withdraw that love in order to judge our wrongs as God's love keeps no record of wrongs.

Giz.

[steamer]

I don't think you are being serious, nor have you supported your assertion.

I have rested my case. If the bible described Satan using the name Yahweh, you would worship it.

[Paul Brand]

I have rested my case. If the bible described Satan using the name Yahweh, you would worship it.Maybe I'll put that one in my signature line. Thanks!

Edit: I guess signatures have been disabled. Oh well. At least I had a good laugh.

[Paul Brand]

I think you have misunderstood me. I am contending that the love has failed at the giving (God's) end if he withdraws that love. He must withdraw that love in order to judge our wrongs as God's love keeps no record of wrongs.

Giz.That may be what you are arguing, but in no instant has God withdrawn his love.

[steamer]

Maybe I'll put that one in my signature line. Thanks!

Edit: I guess signatures have been disabled. Oh well. At least I had a good laugh.

Interesting that you could think its funny. Why would you find it funny? What more evil could Satan do to men than your god has/will? As far as I can see you do not care a bit what evils your god does as long as you get to pretend that your going to be rewarded and avoid punishment. You love the power, the evil that god does to men is irrelelvant to you. If the Job-like test in the OP is true, you fail.

[Gizmo]

That may be what you are arguing, but in no instant has God withdrawn his love.

Then, as I have pointed out before, your definition of this love that has not been withdrawn means that God therefore sees no wrong in me. How then can he send me to hell for committing wrong?

I'm afraid it's time for bed now so I will have to leave this here. I'll check in in the morning. :wave:

Giz

[Angrillori]

yes they are I guess Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice, though he was sinless, doesn't count?
Heck no! I'd do exactly what he did, and I think you're kind of a git. If I knew without a shadow of a doubt I'd get to live in heaven forever after, and would be worshipped on earth forever, and would be like a KING in heaven, I'd nail myself to the cross and pull my own toenails out by the roots.
He suffered and died in my place.
He didn't actually die you know. Did you read the end of that book all those religious folks are so hip on?
I'm thankful for that, but you'd rather mock his sacrifice and spit at him while he's down.I really fail to see your point. Are you really arguing that it is logically impossible for this hypothetical God to not have his own sense of what "love" and "justice" are? That would surprise me.
But if he does, then they're not "love" and "justice" but some other things, represented by other words. I'd suggest that better words for the concepts he seems to be associating with would be pettiness, ignorance, jealousy, anger, pride, and hatred.

Love didn't originate with the English language. Surely you know that.
But God didn't define "love" or "justice" either, surely you know that. Or maybe not, since it was your assertion he did. Humans defined love, justice, agape, eros, amour, amore, and many other words (things with definitions) to describe certain concepts, again, none of which your god shows. Well, maybe eros, he did have that fling with Mary...

[Paul Brand]

Interesting that you could think its funny. After all, I love Satan. Why would you find it funny? No, no. I think you are bang on. I'm just humored that you have been the only one to figure it out. What more evil could Satan do to men than your god has/will? Seriously, I have no idea how Satan could possibly do more evil. As far as I can see you do not care a bit what evils your god does as long as you get to pretend that your going to be rewarded and avoid punishment. Hey I won't deny that! You love the power, the evil that god does to men is irrelelvant to you. Exactly. I love it! If the Job-like test in the OP is true, you fail.Well, if you loved evil as much as I do, you would consider myself rather successful!

[Angrillori]

Funny thing is, I can't tell if Mr. Brand is being serious or not. Happens a lot with xians. That's the trouble when a belief system descends to the level of a self parody. :huh:

[Paul Brand]

Angrillori,

Congratulations, you have successfully made my ignore list!

Peace,

Paul Brand

[Angrillori]

How did that go?

"Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalala! I can't hear you!"

:rolling:

[Paul Brand]

Then, as I have pointed out before, your definition of this love that has not been withdrawn means that God therefore sees no wrong in me.Not true. Remember the part about receiving? For God to remain just, forgiveness of sins must be received. He has given a way to receive this forgiveness, and he continually offers it. It is the offering of love that remains in tact, not the receiving of it.

[Angrillori]

Not true. Remember the part about receiving? For God to remain just, forgiveness of sins must be received. He has given a way to receive this forgiveness, and he continually offers it. It is the offering of love that remains in tact, not the receiving of it.

I can't be the only one that realizes this doesn't make sense.

I can forgive my parents for abusing me as a kid, regardless of whether they "receive" it or not. I can love them regardless of whether they "receive" it. To say that love or forgiveness don't work unless they're "received" is just absurd, and rather antithetical to what love means, really.

Love, and forgiveness are totally independent of their "reception".

My choice to love or forgive someone is not conditional upon any choice of theirs at all. I'm loving and forgiving the hell out of them, whether they choose to reciprocate, or believe in me, or not. My "love beams", my "forgiveness vibes," are hitting them dead-on, regardless. They're getting all that forgiveness, all that love, whether thay want it or not. They can't stop me from forgiving them, because I love them.

[K]

Paul Brand:

Of course. What's your point?

My point is that love and justice have definitions that we humans understand. If God or anyone else uses these words to mean something completely orthogonal to what they mean in human communication, then they cease to have any meaning when used in such a manner. I could easily call myself the tallest person in the world. I'm 5' 10'', but by MY definition of tall, I am the tallest. Does the word "tall" have any meaning to you when I use it in this context? Of course not. It tells you nothing about me (except that I may be insane or just love to butcher the language). Likewise, if God is described as "all loving," but that "love" is unrecognizable in any possible human meaning of the definintion, then the word is meaningless as a description of God.


Quote K:
If a human father treated his children the way it's claimed God treats His, would that be called loving?

Huh? So you are saying that God should have rather kept his Son alive, and ignore humanity's need for redemption? Okay, but I disagree with you.

No, I'm saying God shouldn't send people to be mercilessly and endlessly tortured for any reason at all - but especially not for something so trivial as not stroking His ego.

I really don't see the connection like you apparently do.

The reason I compared the God - human relation to the parent - infant one is quite simple. God is supposed to be on a plane of power and wisdom unimaginable to us. Torturing people for failing His tests would be very much like an adult doing the same thing to an infant or toddler. Such an all powerful and loving "father" should have no need to get back at humans for not believing in Him. His behavior actually sounds quite infantile.

Quote K:
What if the father hid so that most of his children never knew he existed and the ones that did could never agree on what he said or looked like?

What does it matter what he looked like? Most Christians agree that was was said was recorded in the Gospels. I don't see your point.

That's just the point. Most of the people who have ever lived, myself included, haven't seen a single shred of evidence that this God exists. Why does He hide behind some ancient book that reads exactly like the thousands of other ancient religious texts of gods that you and I both know are pretend? Would this be an acceptable behavior for a real loving father? Would we call that love if a father was perfectly able to see his kids, but chose not to and instead had them listen to thousands of different stories about who their father was and let them try to figure out which one might be real?


Quote K:
What if some of the children had extremely painful but easily curable conditions, but the father withheld the cures to see how the babies reacted to extreme pain?

I call strawman on that, and you know it.

Where is the strawman? Is it your claim that God doesn't test humans with great pains? You may not believe it, but a great majority of Christians do.

If God doesn't use pain as a means of testing us, what possible purpose does it serve? Or does it not have a purpose?

Quote K:
What if he capriciously lavished some with all kinds of gifts and starved others just to see if the ones who were rewarded would share?

See above.

Again, do you not believe that God showers many with blessings? Do you not believe that there are others that He has left in very dire circumstances? Do you not believe He relies on the free will of those with much to provide for those with nothing? I see very little difference between this and my scenario above.

Quote K:
What if he then richly rewarded those that had plenty simply because they acknowledged his existence while at the same time he tortured to death those with nothing who didn't love him (or even know he existed)?

See above.

I'll connect the dots for this one too.

Do you not believe that there are many who have much who will be saved simply because they have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior? Do you not believe there are many starving atheists who will go to Hell?

Why does God love Americans so much? Why do they have the greatest chance of entry into heaven simply because they were born in a country where there upbringing teaches them to believe in the "right" God? Is God being fair to a Chinese baby when He sentences her to be born in a country where she is overwhelmingly likely to be an atheist simply because of her upbringing?

Quote K:
What if this man fathered many, many children just so he could set up a test of these tykes? He freely admits that he devise the test and that this test will be failed by the vast majority of his kids. Those who pass will be greatly rewarded. Those who fail will be tortured mercilessly for the rest of their lives (since you don't believe God actively tortures, let's just say the father withholds food from the infants that fail until they starve to death).

See above.

Once again, do you not believe that this life is a test to separate those who make it into Heaven and those that don't? If not, why have this life at all? Why not just create everybody in Heaven?

Do you not believe that the majority of people will not make it to Heaven? The Bible seems to be pretty clear on this point.

Do you not believe that those that fail the test go to Hell? Do you not believe Hell is angony?

Quote K:
You may believe that the father has the right to do these things (you'd definitely be in the minority), but you can't call these things love based on the definition of love.

Why would I call these things love?

That's exactly the point. You shouldn't. That's why you also shouldn't call it love when God does things that are exactly analogous.

Quote:
Therefore, you have no right to call it love when you claim that God does these same types of things.

That is not true.

Then, as has been pointed out by countless posters, there is no longer any meaning to the word "love" when it's used in such a manner. The behaviors we would normally label as "petty," "evil," and "sadistic" are somehow renamed "love," but only when talking about God.

Quote K:
You may argue that God somehow has a right to do these things, but you can't call it love.

God has the right to do as he pleases, and he can call it whatever he wants.

Like I said above, that's not what's being argued here. He may or may not have the right to do whatever He wants. However, the horrific actions attributed to Him can not be called love without destroying the meaning of the word.

Quote:
It perverts the definition of love to the point where it becomes meaningless.

Talking about perversion, how about how you perverted God's actions? Unbelievable.

Please tell me which of God's actions I've perverted. My claim is that God:

1. Does not make Himself unambiguously known to all humanity. This is evidenced by the fact that more people don't believe in the Christian God than do. Also, the Christian factions differ wildly in thier claims about the nature and desires of God.

2. Uses this life to test humans to divide the wheat from the chaff.

3. Tests people with pain and anguish.

4. Bestows more gifts on some than others.

5. Provides some with much greater access to Christian teachings than others.

6. Sends those who pass His test to Heaven to live in eternal bliss.

7. Sends those who fail His test to Hell to live in eternal agony.

8. Considers accepting Him as Lord and Savior passing the test (this one in particular many, but certainly not all Christians believe).

Please tell me which ones are perversions. These are all I used to generate the "loving" psycho dad analogy.

[K]

Angrillori:

To say that love or forgiveness don't work unless they're "received" is just absurd, and rather antithetical to what love means, really.

Well said. And if this new use of the word love is antithetical to what the word love means, then using it in this new way leaves it devoid of meaning.

[Paul Brand]

I could easily call myself the tallest person in the world. I'm 5' 10'', but by MY definition of tall, I am the tallest. Does the word "tall" have any meaning to you when I use it in this context? Of course not.That's because you didn't define it. Completely non-analogous. It tells you nothing about me (except that I may be insane or just love to butcher the language). Likewise, if God is described as "all loving," but that "love" is unrecognizable in any possible human meaning of the definintion, then the word is meaningless as a description of God.Unlike your analogy, the Bible defines love. You haven't defined what "tall" means.

No, I'm saying God shouldn't send people to be mercilessly and endlessly tortured for any reason at all - but especially not for something so trivial as not stroking His ego.You mean trivial such as the redemption of mankind, that is the example you brought up, was it not?

The reason I compared the God - human relation to the parent - infant one is quite simple. God is supposed to be on a plane of power and wisdom unimaginable to us. Torturing people for failing His tests would be very much like an adult doing the same thing to an infant or toddler. Such an all powerful and loving "father" should have no need to get back at humans for not believing in Him. His behavior actually sounds quite infantile.Again you are picking at straws. I thought from my last post, you would have realized that I have some fundamental disagreements with your understanding of the Christian God. Instead of assuming I'm wrong, why don't you address those issues?

That's just the point. Most of the people who have ever lived, myself included, haven't seen a single shred of evidence that this God exists. Why does He hide behind some ancient book that reads exactly like the thousands of other ancient religious texts of gods that you and I both know are pretend? Would this be an acceptable behavior for a real loving father? Would we call that love if a father was perfectly able to see his kids, but chose not to and instead had them listen to thousands of different stories about who their father was and let them try to figure out which one might be real?In my opinion, he doesn't hide. Why do you ask me questions that has assumptions you know I disagree with?

Where is the strawman? Is it your claim that God doesn't test humans with great pains? You may not believe it, but a great majority of Christians do.Oh really? I disagree with you once again.

If God doesn't use pain as a means of testing us, what possible purpose does it serve? Or does it not have a purpose?I'm not sure what you are getting at, nor do I know how it related to our earlier conversation. I'm not so eager to get into rabbit trails. This topic is too big to be covered with a few sentences.

Again, do you not believe that God showers many with blessings? Do you not believe that there are others that He has left in very dire circumstances?Of course I do. But, unlike you, I see a fundamental difference between God permitting certain circumstances to happen, and causing them to happen. Do you not believe He relies on the free will of those with much to provide for those with nothing? I see very little difference between this and my scenario above.I see the difference, I don't know why you don't.



I'll connect the dots for this one too.

Do you not believe that there are many who have much who will be saved simply because they have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior? Do you not believe there are many starving atheists who will go to Hell?I make no judgment. God judges.

Why does God love Americans so much? Again you are asking a question with a hidden implicit assumption I disagree with. Don't you see how frustrating that is? Why do they have the greatest chance of entry into heaven simply because they were born in a country where there upbringing teaches them to believe in the "right" God? How would you know who has the greatest chance of entry into heaven? I sure don't. Is God being fair to a Chinese baby when He sentences her to be born in a country where she is overwhelmingly likely to be an atheist simply because of her upbringing? I know you like to pretend you know what I believe, but you certainly don't.



Once again, do you not believe that this life is a test to separate those who make it into Heaven and those that don't?I don't think that is the primary purpose. If not, why have this life at all? Why not just create everybody in Heaven?Perhaps there is a different purpose?

Do you not believe that the majority of people will not make it to Heaven?I do not know. The Bible seems to be pretty clear on this point.You mean like the narrow path passage? Maybe, maybe not.

Do you not believe that those that fail the test go to Hell?Fail what test? Do you not believe Hell is angony? It involves angony, yes.



That's exactly the point. You shouldn't. That's why you also shouldn't call it love when God does things that are exactly analogous.I agree, yet I think we disagree.



Then, as has been pointed out by countless posters, there is no longer any meaning to the word "love" when it's used in such a manner.Perhaps you misinterpreted my remark. Think, what was it that I disagreed with? The behaviors we would normally label as "petty," "evil," and "sadistic" are somehow renamed "love," but only when talking about God.Your mere opinion carries no weight with me. How many times will I have to tell you again, that we are holding different assumptions here.

Like I said above, that's not what's being argued here. He may or may not have the right to do whatever He wants. However, the horrific actions attributed to Him can not be called love without destroying the meaning of the word.I really don't understand why we are having a discussion containing assumptions we disagree with. You've offered no support for your assumptions, so I don't know why you bother writing such lengthy posts, when you really have nothing of value to say.



Please tell me which of God's actions I've perverted. My claim is that God:

1. Does not make Himself unambiguously known to all humanity. This is evidenced by the fact that more people don't believe in the Christian God than do. Also, the Christian factions differ wildly in thier claims about the nature and desires of God.

2. Uses this life to test humans to divide the wheat from the chaff.

3. Tests people with pain and anguish.

4. Bestows more gifts on some than others.

5. Provides some with much greater access to Christian teachings than others.

6. Sends those who pass His test to Heaven to live in eternal bliss.

7. Sends those who fail His test to Hell to live in eternal agony.

8. Considers accepting Him as Lord and Savior passing the test (this one in particular many, but certainly not all Christians believe).

Please tell me which ones are perversions. These are all I used to generate the "loving" psycho dad analogy.All of the above are either perversions or are inadequate explanations.

And can you tell me why we are having this conversation? What is your motive? I like to debate, but I really don't like debating with people who are angry, unreasonable, and offers attacks with strawman and unwarranted presumptions.

I really think you ought to find someone else to have this conversation with. Perhaps someone who holds to the same assumptions you do. I'm personally done discussing this with you.

[Gizmo]

Mornin' all! :wave:

That's because you didn't define it. Completely non-analogous.

Which then comes back to my unanswered point from last night (over here that is). You have stated that God has not withdrawn his love from me due to my rejection of that love. You posited the definition of love as 'keeping no record of wrongs'. Yet you seem to feel that God will nonetheless judge me for those wrongs - it kinda makes that definition of love at best irrelevant and at worst meaningless.

Giz.

[Angrillori]

That's because you didn't define it. Completely non-analogous. Unlike your analogy, the Bible defines love. You haven't defined what "tall" means.

What the heck does that mean though? The analogy, as far as it can be is perfect:

Gizmo uses (defines for himself) the word tall in such a way that it is 100% different than the way everyone else in the word uses the word tall. He proceeds to say, "I am the tallest person in the world."

God uses (defines for himself) the word "love" in such a way that it is 100% different than the way everyone else in the world uses the word love. He proceeds to say, "I am loving."

Maps pretty much perfectly.

<snip the part about Paul's unsupported assertions about how god isn't hidden, how he disagrees that hell is torturous, that genocide is loving, that freedom is slavery, that war is peace, and so on.>

[K]

Paul Brand:

That's because you didn't define it. Completely non-analogous.

Unlike your analogy, the Bible defines love. You haven't defined what "tall" means.

Fine. I'll define "tall." Tall means having characteristics exactly like mine. Therefore I am "tall" and "tall" is me.

Now that I've satisfied your complaint, have I told you anything about myself be describing myself as tall, or have I made the word meaningless when it's used to describe me?

Why should the Bible try to redefine an existing word with a completely new meaning? Why not invent a new word and define it or use existing words that are much closer in meaning. Petty and sadistic come to mind.


Quote K:
No, I'm saying God shouldn't send people to be mercilessly and endlessly tortured for any reason at all - but especially not for something so trivial as not stroking His ego.

You mean trivial such as the redemption of mankind, that is the example you brought up, was it not?

No, I never brought that up and frankly I don't see where you could have thought I did. I compared God to an abusive father for punishing His supposed children in a manner completely out of line for any of their so called transgressions. Certainly a father who tortured his children mercilessly simply because they didn't bow down and acknowledge him as their ruler would be labelled a monster.


Again you are picking at straws. I thought from my last post, you would have realized that I have some fundamental disagreements with your understanding of the Christian God. Instead of assuming I'm wrong, why don't you address those issues?

I would if you would simply point out what those issues are. You simply called "straw man" without any elaboration. What could I possibly be expected to do with that?

In my opinion, he doesn't hide. Why do you ask me questions that has assumptions you know I disagree with?

Because it wasn't an assumption. I offered solid evidence which you haven't even attempted to refute.

There have been many thousands of vastly different religions. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have not been Christian. A very large percentage of them have not even been exposed to Christianity. Even within Christianity, there are wildly differing opinions about who God is and what He wants. These are all strong evidence that, if God does exist, He is definitely hidden.


Quote K:
Where is the strawman? Is it your claim that God doesn't test humans with great pains? You may not believe it, but a great majority of Christians do.

Oh really? I disagree with you once again.

Well please don't have me try to read your mind. Why do you believe God allows pain and agony on earth? He certainly could have created everyone in Heaven with no pain and no agony (unless you don't believe He is omnipotent of course).


Quote K:
If God doesn't use pain as a means of testing us, what possible purpose does it serve? Or does it not have a purpose?

I'm not sure what you are getting at, nor do I know how it related to our earlier conversation. I'm not so eager to get into rabbit trails. This topic is too big to be covered with a few sentences.

What I'm getting at is that God certainly allows quite a bit of pain and agony in this world. Many say that this life is a test to see who is worthy to live with God in Heaven. I think I've shown that a human father treating his kids similarly would not be called loving.

You don't believe that this life is a test. That's fine. Why does this loving "Father" cause/allow so much pain and agony for His "children?" If He is omnipotent, He certainly doesn't have to.

Quote K:
Again, do you not believe that God showers many with blessings? Do you not believe that there are others that He has left in very dire circumstances?

Of course I do. But, unlike you, I see a fundamental difference between God permitting certain circumstances to happen, and causing them to happen.

But that is the problem. We don't call a human parent "loving" when they allow all manner of ill to befall their children without intervening.

If my children were in dire danger there is absolutely nothing I wouldn't do to try and save them. And I'm a lowly human. How can an omnipotent God sit by watching His children slaughtered without lifting a finger and still be called "loving?" It's senseless.

Quote K:
Do you not believe He relies on the free will of those with much to provide for those with nothing? I see very little difference between this and my scenario above.

I see the difference, I don't know why you don't.

Maybe it's because you haven't pointed it out. I've tried to be very explicit. Why don't you explain to me what you think the differences are?

I make no judgment. God judges.

This is a perfect example. If you have no idea HOW God will judge people, you have no right to call Him "loving" or "just." Those are words that describe certain types of behaviors. According to your quote above, God could have Hitler and Stalin sitting next to Him in Heaven while there victims all rot in Hell. This would not be loving or just by the actual definitions of the words. So unless you know how God judges, you can't judge Him to be loving or just.

Quote:
Why does God love Americans so much?

Again you are asking a question with a hidden implicit assumption I disagree with. Don't you see how frustrating that is?

I apologize that this one was not so obvious. I thought it was when I typed it. But looking back, I should have been more explicit.

People overwhelmingly stay with the religions they are born into. Christianity is big in the United States. Therefore, an American is much more likely to become Christian than say a Chinese person.

If one of the things God judges people on is whether or not they were a good Christian (you may not believe this, but I've had to make some assumptions since you haven't exactly been forthcoming about what you do believe), then the cards are completely stacked for the Americans and against the Chinese.

How would you know who has the greatest chance of entry into heaven? I sure don't.

Then on what grounds do you label God "loving" and "just?"

I know you like to pretend you know what I believe, but you certainly don't.

I'm certainly willing for you to tell me.

Quote K:
Once again, do you not believe that this life is a test to separate those who make it into Heaven and those that don't?

I don't think that is the primary purpose.

And from that I'm supposed to know what you think the primary purpose it? Please offer some support of your position.

Quote K:
If not, why have this life at all? Why not just create everybody in Heaven?

Perhaps there is a different purpose?

Yes, there could be a different purpose. Many possibilities are pure evil. Why don't you explain what you think the purpose is and how it makes God a loving being?

Quote:
Do you not believe that the majority of people will not make it to Heaven?

I do not know.

Again you seem to say you have no idea how God operates, but still feel justified in calling Him "loving" and "just." You can't call him "loving" if you don't know that He doesn't hold petty grudges. You can't call him "just" if you don't know that His judgement isn't capricious or deliberately unfair.

Quote K:
The Bible seems to be pretty clear on this point.

You mean like the narrow path passage? Maybe, maybe not.

Fine. What do you believe?

Quote K:
Do you not believe that those that fail the test go to Hell?

Fail what test?

Since you don't believe this life is a test to separate the wheat from the chaff, let me rephrase. Do you believe that those who make the "wrong" choices in this life go to Hell?

Quote K:
Do you not believe Hell is angony?

It involves angony, yes.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

Would you say that a loving human father would knowingly condemn his child to eternally experience the agony of Hell for all eternity? Would you say that a loving human father would do anything within his power to prevent his child from eternally experiencing the torment of Hell.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my remark. Think, what was it that I disagreed with?

I guess I'm not sure. Why don't you enlighten me?

Quote K:
The behaviors we would normally label as "petty," "evil," and "sadistic" are somehow renamed "love," but only when talking about God.

Your mere opinion carries no weight with me. How many times will I have to tell you again, that we are holding different assumptions here.

It's not my opinion or assumptions. I've offered plenty of support for my position which is far more than you've done. I've listed out explicitly many reasons why God's so called actions, if performed by a human parent, would be considered anything but "loving." So far I haven't seen one shred of support offered by you for your position that you can label God as "loving."

I really don't understand why we are having a discussion containing assumptions we disagree with. You've offered no support for your assumptions, so I don't know why you bother writing such lengthy posts, when you really have nothing of value to say.

The only assumption I've had to make are that you follow a fairly mainstream version of Christianity. And the only reason I've had to make that assumption is the fact that you are so reluctant to divulge what you actually believe.

Other than that, all I've done is present an analogy of an unfit parent and shown why the analogy holds. You've rejected the analogy without presenting any reasons why except some irrelevant talk about assumptions. If you don't want me to assume what brand of Christianity you follow, then spell it out. It's as simple as that.

All of the above are either perversions or are inadequate explanations.

Great. Now please just explain why they are perversions or inadequate explanations. Saying, "no you're wrong," without offering explanations for why gets us nowhere.

And can you tell me why we are having this conversation? What is your motive? I like to debate, but I really don't like debating with people who are angry, unreasonable, and offers attacks with strawman and unwarranted presumptions.

I have no real motive other than the fact that I see Christians call a God who condemns people to infinite torment "loving." That is clearly redefining the word. You may not believe that God sends anyone to Hell or you may not believe that Hell involves eternal agony. If that is the case then this conversation really doesn't make any sense. However, from some of your posts to me and others, it appears that these are two that you may believe. I'm trying not to make assumptions about what you believe, but you really haven't been forthcoming.

By the way, I'm certainly not angry. I hope my posts don't come off that way. I realize that communication via posting can leave a little more edge to words than would normally be in a vocal conversion. I would like to think that I'm not unreasonable either. Of course, I'm clearly not the person to judge that. I haven't been called that in any area of my life before at least to the best of my recollection. I have been told that my arguments are sometimes too analytical before so maybe I should take the "unreasonable" as a compiment!

I really think you ought to find someone else to have this conversation with. Perhaps someone who holds to the same assumptions you do. I'm personally done discussing this with you.

I'm fine with dropping this discussion. However, just for my own benefit, please tell me which assumptions you're talking about. If you're talking about my assumptions about what you believe, you could easily clear that up with a few sentences describing what you actually believe.

[Hedshaker]

How did that go?

"Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalala! I can't hear you!"

:rolling:

You're in fine company my friend. Next one to join the esteemed Paul Brand ignor list buys a round of beers, mines a Tenets Super :rolling:

At this rate we'll all be pissed by lunch time :D

Orbit