Is Christ cruel? (For member Schrafinator)

I wasn't trying to debunk anything, I merely asked how do YOU know that your christian god wouldn't do something that he supposedly had done in the past. You responded with a lame, vague response about having to know the bible well and believe it. Well the bible doesn't say anywhere in it that god won't order his people to go kill another group of people.

This is even worse. Before you were simply holding up Christianity as the prototypical religion whose outline all other religions must follow to obtain legitimacy, but now you're just defining away all other religions by claiming Christianity is truth and other religions are false. We already know what you believe, your problem is that stating them so unequivocally and unforgivingly doesn't provide evidence of anything but your chutspah.You began by claiming that other religions were not legitimate because they had no person sent to die for the sins of others, and that they did not require belief but deeds for salvation. I answered that these are just qualities of Christianity, not the definition of legitimate religion (and you wouldn't even find agreement among Christians about the belief versus deeds part). And your belief that fundamentalist Christianity represents truth carries just as much weight as any equivalent claims of fundamentalist Moslems and Hindus and Buddhists and so forth. With analogies, them that can rebut the point of the analogy rebut the point of the analogy. Them that can't, they rebut the analogy itself. But you're changing course in mid-argument again, aren't you. You said, "He doesn't say why. I'm sure we'll all understand it one day." You didn't say the evidence was there and explains it. You said it isn't comprehensible at present. I agree, and that's why I called it a catchall excuse used by Christians for millennia to answer the contradictions.--Percy

Hypothetical: I'm a parent and keep in my house loaded guns, poison, all kinds of things that are deadly. I am bigger, stronger, and more knowledgable than my children. I tell them about the guns and that if they point them at one another pull the trigger they can kill one another. I tell them this is a bad thing, don't do it.I decide to "become a spectator". I love my children and want them to be happy and safe and grow up. But I decide they need to exercise their free will and I want to see what happens. They are playing Star Wars or Cops and Robbers, or get in a fight over some toy, I don't know. One of them in either childish anger or caught up in fantasy picks up a loaded gun points it at their brother. I watch, curious to see what will happen. I could stop it. I don't want them to shoot their sibling but I choose to be a spectator.The child pulls the trigger and kills their brother. I'm not responsible. The child is. They had free will and I had told them what would happen and not to do it. I was there. I could have stopped it but I chose to be a spectator.Therefore, I'm not to blame, it's the child's fault.Is this your position? It certainly sounds like what you are saying.lfenedited a typoThis message has been edited by lfen, 06-02-2005 08:15 AM

Far as I know I haven't said one thing different at any point. I explain various things to you and you take them to mean something I didn't intend, but I can't help that. Christianity is THE truth and it is the salvation of humanity by the death of the Son of God to all who believe. There is no other truth, there is no other way to be saved. Far as I know I have never said or implied anything else.The analogy of the violin is a bogus analogy and I'm amazed you would continue to try to defend it. Truth is not a mechanical thing.There is plenty of evidence for the truths of Christianity but you make a big deal about the mysterious parts.

This is news to me! Strictly speaking what then is a religion?How do you qualify or decide which of the world's "religions" or belief systems are or aren't religion? Is Judaism a religion?lfen

I didn't mean to offend you, I just didn't think you were understanding what I meant. Why would God be wrong if it wasn't his will?He's wrong if it was his will, am I right? In that, if he stated that it was his will that she go to hell. But that's assuming his will is that she goes to hell. It's clear that it makes more sense to say that God doesn't make a will such as that if humans could change that will. So God couldn't have a will that dictates she goes to hell, as he would then allow people to be able to change his mind.If she finally goes to hell, then that would be her choice as she has the ability to choose.My argument in my opinion doesn't fail, in that I gave two options, either God isn't omnipotent, and as you say, fallible, OR it tisn't his will she goes to hell.We are discussin the God of the bible remember, therefore the character of God, must be taken on what that bible says. And that bible says that it's God's intention that the Gospel is preached, because Jesus Christ died that we will be saved.It is illogical to therefore take the option that God is fallible and creates people for hell, as it doesn't fit his actions in Christ.So God can know each and every decision, and the next and the next as Asgara mentioned. But if it was his will that he created people for hell, then he would have said that, then you could prove him fallible, but he said his will was that we choose to believe or not, therefore, he creates us to have that choice, so then it is put on us, and we are responsible.This message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-02-2005 11:15 AM

ADDENDUM.Message #86 is checkmate pertaining to as to whether God creates us for hell. It's not possible because you cannot state NOW, who is intended for hell. If it is his will, then you can only prove it's his will by showing me the actual individuals who go to hell. A will must predate an outcome, so you have to provide the will now in order for your argument to be correct (otherwise you can't prove anything). So you must show that God intends specific beings in hell and their names, before the outcome.I hereby claim my argument as irrefutably unrefuted and have no more to say.This message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-02-2005 11:21 AM

A religion is a human-originated teaching about God which is false because it is corrupted by our fallen nature. Christianity is God-originated, the fulfillment of 2000 years of God's own initiatives to reach sin-blinded humanity with the truth about Himself and His way of salvation.{EDIT: Judaism is no longer Old Testament religion, but has degenerated into man-originated traditions, but Old Testament revelation is the truth of God.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-02-2005 11:22 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 06-02-2005 11:23 AM

You're again clipping your quotes a wee bit tight, aren't you. What I actually said was, "Who am I saving myself from? God, isn't it? And not for living a bad life, but for not worshipping him. This is a merciful, loving God to you?"So are you now saying that if I don't worship God I can still go to heaven by avoiding sin? You're not, are you, because your obvious answer is that sin in inherent in us all, and if we don't accept the saving grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that our sins will not be forgiven and we will be confined to hell. And not for my own sins, but for the sins of a mythical couple.So I ask you once again, this is a merciful, loving God to you? But choosing heads or tails is not a moral choice but a random one. I know you're not equating a moral choice to randomness. You said God gave us the ability to heed the tempter or the Lord, and an analogy to a coin toss is not appropriate to this situation. Let me get this straight. Both our God given abilities to choose between the tempter and the Lord were working fine, but I used my abilty and ended up ignoring the choice since they're both fictional characters, while you used your ability to make the correct choice of the Lord. Why did your God given ability result in the right choice and my God given ability did not? It certainly isn't anything I did myself, I'm just being me.Or maybe it is just my bad luck. Was that why you used the analogy of the coin toss? And if so then I once again ask, this is a merciful and loving God to you? I only quoted part of your final two paragraphs, but I'm actually responding to the whole thing. Actually, responding isn't the correct word because I honestly don't know how to respond. I guess all I can say is that I've never seen any evidence of either the temptor or the Lord, so much of it has no more meaning for me than a fairy tale. Thanks for the effort, though.--Percy

On the contrary, if you believe in a deity with infinite knowledge of the all things future and past, that created all things, and condemns those that don't follow his rules to some form of eternal punishment, you do worship a cruel and monstrous god. Sorry if you can't accept or understand that.It's all irrelevant, of course. We may as well be arguing over whether Santa Claus is cruel for skipping the Jewish kid's houses.

Ah thank you, your Highness. We all appreciate that you have deigned to make your profound announcement post priori about your a priori infallibilty. As you are omniscient and utterly irresponsible we no longer need pay any attention to your meaningless blather.The gift of your silence is much appreciated. I hope to not see you around.lfen

Claim it all you want. It isn't so. Here's why... No such thing need be shown. Unless you will agree that within your belief system no person who has died in the past has been condemned by your god and only those currently living have a chance of being condemned does your argument work.We'll take this slow. Do you agree with the above? Yes or no will suffice.

If God "knew" something that turned out to be false he would be wrong. God's will doesn't enter into that part.A premise of the argument is that God knows that Schraf will not believe. If Schraf does believe after all, that knowledge would be false and therefore God would be wrong.Thus your argument can only work if it is possible that God could be wrong.

No one said truth was mechanical, plus you equated Christianity to truth in a message after the one where I offered my analogy, so I wasn't drawing an analogy with truth. I wasn't even offering an analogy with religion.What I was offering was an analogy of someone who believed his musical instrument was the only proper way to make music with your belief that your religion is the only way to worship God. If you'd like to address the point of the analogy then please go ahead. If you'd like to again commit the fallacy of rebuttal through reinterpreted analogy then that's pretty pointless. Uh, but it's the topic of this thread. You know, one of Christianity's great mysteries? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do little babies suffer and all that? Isn't the man upstairs responsible? And isn't that what you referred to when you said we didn't understand at this time, but perhaps someday we will?--Percy

I clipped, because I dealt with your question later on down. I did enough point labouring Obviously you can't avoid sin...you are the descendent of sinners (heh inheritance, does that mean salvation is a selection procedure, and Jesus was the random mutation? Hmm, that way madness lies). Anyway, so yeah, Adam/Eve gave mankind the knowledge of good and evil. So here we are...in a whole heap of crap because of it. God decided to help us out of the mess and did the whole Jesus saga. As I said, I already answered your question, that is why the answer was 'obvious'. You already knew how I was going to answer it because I had already answered it. A God that tries to help us dig our way out of the pit of sin we dug for ourselves by sending his only son to die for us? Pretty merciful (he could just flood the world and try again instead), and is thus loving, he is attempting to lead his flock back to paradise where it was once cast out. It isn't the decision that is important, it is the ability to make a decision. In both instances a decision is made. Therefore the ability to make a decision exists and functions perfectly regardless of the actual decision made. Hypothetically you're on the right track. I actually chose the same as you, but that's not really the point is it? So in this situation you were given the same choice I was. You gave in to temptation, whereas I didn't. You obviously made the same mistake Adam/Eve did so you don't get to go back to paradise. You did not learn. On the other hand, I learned from the mistake that Adam/Eve made and made the right choice. What gave me this ability to learn from Adam's mistake? We both have the ability, you decided to not employ it.Why did you not employ it? Because...well obviously we can go around and around on this all day. The crux is, what makes this decision, our soul or our brain. Naturally if it is our brain, then those with certain brain structures are out of luck. If it is our soul, then why would God create a soul which would not choose Him?The answer of course, lies back in our salvation model. Unfortunately you might just be crap out of luck. Sorry buddy. You were knackered to begin with, God offered a way out, but the inherent make up of who you were born as, coupled with the sinful nature of man you were surrounded by, coupled with the adversary (how many things can 'couple'?) means you're doomed to suffer because of those selfish little navel free mugs.Ah well, you would have been doomed anyway, at least God has tried to give you an option, even if you would never accept it, some would. Its more merciful to save those you can, that to let all slip into damnation?Of course, don't let that despair, you might be given other opportunities to be saved yet. Heh - well as I said, if there are 100 people drowning because you told one of them not to pull the plug out of the bottom of the boat (!!!), and they did anyway. Is it cruel to send your son down there with a message which basically reads "I told you not to pull the plug, OH look, you didn't believe me. I'll give you another chance, 3 miles north of here is an island (which cannot be seen until you are there), the tide is on its way in, I promise that if you swim towards it you will be saved"? Now, some people are inherently going to ignore your second chance, some people will accept it, and swim towards the island.That's merciful isn't it? Assuming theologically it is not possible to click ones finger to save them on the spot. Of course there isn't evidence for it. You are posting in the Faith and Belief forum, not the Science forum, what did you expect but to ultimately receive the answer "faith", wrapped in a bundle of theological mumbo-jumbo?Don't look at me, I get a sick pleasure out of playing Devil's advocate for the Holy Bible occasionally. Irony...don't you just love it.Take care Percy.This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 02-June-2005 05:04 PM