Is Christ cruel? (For member Schrafinator)

Why would it not follow that these people were created and given the same choice as everyone else...only that they chose not to make? Just because God knows what we ultimately will decide to do does not make Him responsible for our eventual decision.He would only be responsible if there were no opt out available. fess up, J. Davis. We have you surrounded!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 06-02-2005 01:22 AM

---

"It is as impossible for man to demonstrate the existence of God as it would be for even Sherlock Holmes to demonstrate the existence of Arthur Conan Doyle."
---
"Religion points to that area of human experience where in one way or another man comes upon mystery as a summons to pilgrimage."
---
"People are prepared for everything except for the fact that beyond the darkness of their blindness there is a great light. They are prepared to go on breaking their backs plowing the same old field until the cows come home without seeing, until they stub their toes on it, that there is a treasure buried in that field rich enough to buy Texas. They are prepared for a God who strikes hard bargains but not for a God who gives as much for an hour's work as for a day's. They are prepared for a mustard-seed kingdom of God no bigger than the eye of a newt but not for the great banyan it becomes with birds in its branches singing Mozart. They are prepared for the potluck supper at First Presbyterian but not for the marriage supper of the lamb".Frederick Buechner

And I would think that God judges based on the true intentions of the heart. Even if a non-believer was unable to accept the rationality of insufficient evidence, they would have tried. They were being as honest as they could possibly be with what was given to them. They would not be necessarily damned to eternal banishment or torment. they would probably get a chance to reconsider in light of the final evidence that god was real---irregardless. (assuming that He is real, of course. )

Why is it only the Bible crowd who don’t get this? Well, it is what the person believes when they die that’s important. This is the crux of the matter. God knows everything, thus he would know what your choice would be even before you made it, He would know that before you died that you did not believe in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and that He conquered death. Now, God knows this before He even created this person, but He still created the person knowing that they would reject the Gospel. God would know what your choice would be, even before He made you. So, it is a choice, but it is a choice that God already knows the outcome of. God knows everything, He knows the second that you will die and everything else about you, He’s even counted the hairs on your head. He therefore knows what you will believe when you die. God knows that Mr. X will be a nonbeliever when he dies, long before He creates Mr. X, thus Mr. X cannot possibly be a believer when he dies because God already knows that he wont be a believer. But it does. He KNOWS your decision before He makes you. He is responsible for making you and He is responsible for condemning you because He is responsible for making you. The opt out doesn’t actually come in to it because your decision is known to Him before you make it.God knows who will choose to believe and who won’t long before they are created, thus He creates people in the knowledge that they won’t believe, hence He is cruel and barbaric.Only the Whiz can propose an argument that is so logically flawed. Brian.

How many times have I heard that one. If you want to preach freethinking to me, you'd better make sure your story and wisdom makes sense.What is the "right thing" ifmorals are relative like unbelievers preach. If you said, "I hope God is atleast as moral as me" and Jack the ripper said "I hope God is atleast as moral as me", if relativism is correct, then why should God be like you rather than Jack the ripper?Jack kept his moral, to only kill women, and he never transgressed that moral by killing a man. He might be more moral than you.As for your question, "b" person doesn't exist. We do good to please God, and the NT says we are "unprofitable servants", therefore we do good, but more importantly, we believe good exists and that it is absolute.So how can you do the right thing when you don't even believe good exists? there is no good action, because it's relative? Your good action might be another unbelievers evil action.This message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-02-2005 08:07 AM

It's okay - I understand completely. You want God to be as you think he should be, like Jar. Which is to make God in your own image.I don't preach that God is cruel or a monstrous creature, that isn't my God, so don't say it. Christ was perfect, and forgave many, and healed whoever came to him, so don't make out I worship a devil, when I have cearly stated the opposite.It's okay, I understand, you want me to tell you what you want to hear like Jar has. What shall I do? Pretend I wrote the bible and give you a little line;" hey, you're basicly a good guy, yeah sure - you're going to heaven, and creationists to hell".There you go, keep on walking to the edge of the cliff, because I've just blinded you completely. I've affirmed your delusion.You see, I could be like Jar, and tell you something to please your ears, or I can attempt over a long period, to tell you what God actually does say, because I know what I say is irrelevant.I want to tell you you're going to heaven a hundred fold more that Jar does, whether you believe me or not. I was here before Jar, I tried to convert SHraff before Jar even joined, I care about her more, but I won't lie and make God in my own image, and say things about God I prefer to say. I have leanred many things, and many logics that people might see my true and lengthy effort. To show that there are valid answers to these questions that are well thought out on not designed to comfort you, but to meet your intellectual requirements, like message one. But - okay, if you want to believe the sentence that is good to the ear then fair enough, I'll stop saying anything now.This message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-02-2005 08:17 AMThis message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-02-2005 08:19 AM

Good pint, and you gave me an idea aswell.I have a logical answer now, that might satisfy the none-believer's requirements. (well, nothing would do that, but ...ho hum )Let's say for arguments sake, that God foresees that someone's parents go to hell, yet their son goes to heaven. If God doesn't create the parents, then the son who goes to heaven, will never exist. This means that God's intention to create his son, with his desire for his son to have those specific genes, would be lost. God's intention would become obsolete. The son wouldn't be born nor go to heaven.That's an answer to their question, not that I think their position is valid anyway, that God creates an unbeliever for hell, as message one clearly refuted that notion.Hey Phatboy, do you mean confess? About what?This message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-02-2005 08:31 AM

If the parents were created solely to make sure the child was born then so be it. It doesn't change the fact that the parents were created to be damned.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Me too! A nice extra cold Guiness on the way home. I'll let Schraff point out where you have supported her argument. Brian.

It would be an infinite reason for them to be created.Remember, the parents are created with a choice ASWELL as the fact that God has to think about the child. So it looks like it isn't as simple as "God created me to burn" when his intent for you to believe, is quite clear in the NT.No one is blinded to the sign "mind the hole", everyone can choose as to whether to believe or not, but the bible clearly has warned us to mind the hole. If we don't, then questioning God in an attempt to take the focus off of our sins, won't wash with Him come judgement day.It is truly a perverse teaching to say that God created someone to go to hell. This is not backed up by the bible at all. His clear intentions are to save the world. Only satan could make such a perverse and backward teaching, and turn it on God instead of the true condemner, which is sin.

It doesn't have to be backed by the bible hun, it is backed very well by reason.IF god is omniscient AND god creates all life that is where the problem starts.Answer these questions:
1. Is god omniscient?
2. Is god the sole creater of life?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Why remove the chaff if you remove the wheat also?What matters is the chaff is chaff and the wheat is wheat, and the maker is the maker.If there was no choice, then you would be correct. There is, and you haven't answered what I said about the sign to mind the hole.Right now, anyone can change their mind and believe. Therefore, if God created an unbeliever to go to hell, how can an unbeliever change that will if he becomes a believer? Has he not broken that logic?I thought it was God's will. Yet you have the power to change to belief. That's three very weighty answers that prove, via reason and logic, that God doesn't intend us for hell.1. It's our choise completely
2. The believer children of the unbelievers
3. You can change what you are saying is God's will. If it's God's will, trust me - you wouldn't have the power to change it. Yet you can, by believing tomorrow morning. If you believed tomorrow morning, you would negate the following;"God created me to burn".It is therefore impossible that it is God's will for people to burn, because God's will doesn't change when people's minds change. Otherwise, I could decide that rape was not sin, if I changed my mind.IF YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND YOU WOULD CHANGE GOD'S WILL< WHICH MEANS HE WOULD NOT BE OMNIPOTENTThere are only two logical pathways left. Either it is God's will, and his will can be changed, or it isn't Gods will.The bible says the latter. Because God is all-powerful. There is no way we would have the power to change the mind of the creator of this universe.This is checkmate. All readers read atleast three times.This message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-02-2005 09:12 AM

quote:

---

What is the "right thing" ifmorals are relative like unbelievers preach.

---

But all morals are relative.That is self-evidenct.Is it always immoral to commit genocide and rape?Or, is it OK as long as God tells you to?That sounds pretty relativist to me.

quote:

---

If you said, "I hope God is atleast as moral as me" and Jack the ripper said "I hope God is atleast as moral as me", if relativism is correct, then why should God be like you rather than Jack the ripper?

---

If it is presumed that God knows each person's heart, wouldn't He know if each person was doing the best he could morally?If someone was a believer in Christ and tried his very best to follow the moral rules of the Bible, but it turns out that he actually misunderstood some key points and was doing a bunch of stuff very against Christ's teachings due to this misunderstnading, would God damn this person to hell?The value of moral standards can be judged by their usefulness to maintaining a civil society in which people live together and cause each other as little harm as possible.

quote:

---

Jack kept his moral, to only kill women, and he never transgressed that moral by killing a man. He might be more moral than you.

---

He killed people, so he violated a major moral standard of mine.Of course, if he was insane, he really can't be held responsible for his actions.Tell me, do you think God sends mentally ill people to hell for their actions?

quote:

---

As for your question, "b" person doesn't exist.

---

OK, Christianity is solely about the fear of retribution, then.

quote:

---

We do good to please God, and the NT says we are "unprofitable servants", therefore we do good, but more importantly, we believe good exists and that it is absolute.

---

OK

quote:

---

So how can you do the right thing when you don't even believe good exists?

---

I certainly believe that "good" exists, just not that it is absolute or that any one religion or moral system has a lock on defining it.Was it "good" for God to order the genocide of an entire nation of people; men, women, and infants?Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think genocide is ever "good" in any way

quote:

---

there is no good action, because it's relative? Your good action might be another unbelievers evil action.

---

My "genocide and rape" is clearly your "God ordered moral holy bloodbath and the good and moral use of women as the spoils of war".This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-02-2005 09:16 AM

If God's morals are relative, then if God is as moral as you, and is of the Jack the Ripper kind of moral, then you'd be happy with that?You miss my point completely. The morals in the bible don't change. The words don't change. You say you believe good exists, but it's not absolute? Then what is good? It becomes defined as "whatever I like", because you said;"The value of moral standards can be judged by their usefulness to maintaining a civil society in which people live together and cause each other as little harm as possible."So then is good what is good for society?But we're talking about God. Are you saying God's morals are relative? LMAO.If they are, then what makes Jack the ripper wrong and you right. Exactly miss Shraffy!!!!! Man you're smarter than this!It wouldn't matter if he offended your moral, because good is what benefits him remember, and his willing society of heaven bounds, chosen by Jack to sacrifice themselves because it is "good" to them.If he violated your moral standard,(unbeliever 1) and another unbeliever says that Jack killing didn't violate his moral standards(unbeliever 2), then who should God listen to? WHo is right?Why should God choose your moral if the other unbeliever thinks killing is good?Therefore good MUST be absolute. It must means something absolute, or it could represent anything. Your good acts are moot, if they are evil acts in Jack's eyes, and his society of willing sacrificial femi-freaks.This message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-02-2005 09:25 AM

The premise of the argument is that God knows that Schraf will not believe.Therefore if Schraf did change her mind and beleive then God would be in error. His knowledge was incorrect.Thus your "checkmate" argument presumes that God can and does make mistakes.

Was it "good" for God to order the genocide of an entire nation of people; men, women, and infants?