Is Christ cruel? (For member Schrafinator)

You're going to have to help me out with this one. God created Schraf, so it's her fault she chose not to believe?In that case, the most recent bug on the EvC Forum search page is your fault. --Percy

iseethemoosehonorariumisoveryouknowspacesandpunctuationalsogetintheway
paragraphscausethesameproblemalsoinlistsyoudontwantnumberedorletteredi
temslike123orabcoreveniiiiiijustwonderingifyouthoughtaboutthisanddonst
forgetthosepossessivesorapostrophesforcontractionsnoneofthoseeitherser
iouslyjustteasingihavenoproblemswithnocapsmydocumentationpersonisthesa
mewayexceptwhensheswritingdocumentationarevowelsreallynecessarypercy

Uh, I was on your side in the Moose thing. It just felt so incongruous seeing a message from you with proper capitalization and then the very next one from you I see, albeit a week later, is back to normal, so I felt moved to comment. Allow me to fill in the spaces and punctuation from the end of my message: I thought the smiley made it clear. Didn't mean it to be taken the wrong way, sorry. Or are you pulling my leg since I was pulling yours?--Percy

Still having problems with this one: Let's grant for the sake of discussion that God has placed before Schraf the necessary information to understand both that he exists and what he expects from her.The important point is that God created Schraf. He created her ability to perceive and interpret this information. How does the fault lie with Schraf?Making the same point in a slightly different way, God created you and God created Schraf. He gave you ability to perceive and accept his gift, but he denied it to Schraf. How do you conclude that you deserve credit and Schraf condemnation, rather than that it's just how God created you both?--Percy

This seems a slightly different argument than Faith's, since you say God did not create Schraf. But with an all-knowing and all-powerful God the flaw in Schraf's soul was implicit when he performed the initial creation. The initial creation event governed all that came after. God creates souls, they do not create themselves.On the other hand, in a universe without an all-knowing and all-powerful God, one who perhaps created the universe but does not control everything in it or know everything about it, then souls being created outside his purview is a possibility. But then there remains the question, where did Schraf's soul come from? She certainly didn't make it herself? Did the devil make it? In that case you can't blame Schraf for hearing but not heeding God's message, can you?Of course, the overarching issue is the claim that God has provided unequivocal evidence of his existence that one must accept and who one must worship on pain of eternal damnation. As has been said many, many times here over the years, this is inconsistent with a loving and forgiving God, as well as with all-knowing and all-powerful God. Why would such a God demand worship?Further, the claim of unequivocal evidence is belied by the sheer multiplicity of faiths and sects, and just as importantly, religion is an issue of faith, not evidence. People accept God not because evidence was presented in books and blackboards but because God spoke to their hearts.--Percy

If it's nothing you did, if it's nothing you deserve, if God deserves the credit, then how can you blame someone who God chose to leave "in that condition"? You keep going back and forth. First it's something God grants you, then it's something you did. And other religions send pretty much the same message. Who to believe? Is God all-knowing and all-powerful or not? If he is, then he created Adam and Eve knowing they would fall and that one day there would be a soul named Schraf who would be condemned to hell.--Percy

Granting what you say for the sake of discussion, God gives us free will, but if we exercise it and don't accept and worship him, then we get eternal damnation. This would seem to answer the thread's question. And this is consistent with free will how?--Percy

And these qualities specific to Christianity are defining of truth how?--Percy

And how do you reconcile this "outside of time" concept of God with the God of Genesis, who let there light on the first day, and then saw it was good, and then there was an evening and a morning, and then on the second day he created the firmament, and so forth and so on until it was time to rest? The God of Genesis and was very much a part of time.What you've actually created is a God of confusion for whom everything exists all at once in the same moment and who has no idea of the effects of his actions. Not the standard picture of an all-knowing, all-powerful God.You've also created a God of the "Who, me?" He's created it all, but none of it is his fault, it's all our fault. We didn't do anything but get born, nonetheless it's all our fault. He sounds more like the product of a typical human guilt complex, more psychology than religion.There are probably some quarters where these contradictions heighten the sense of the great wonder and mystery and unfathomability of God, but another way of looking at it is that they're as contradictory as they sound.--Percy

You don't recall correctly. You said, in essence, the Bible says BELIEVE IT, and I replied, "And other religions send pretty much the same message. Who to believe?"It appears you think there's some universal truth that one should seek the one, right and true religion by finding the one that offers you "salvation by another's death in your place." As I said, this is merely a notion specific to Christianity, not the structure of truth. You've got to stop presuming your personal religious beliefs are universal truths for everyone else.But this is drawing us off topic. We're seeking an explanation for why God creates souls he knows he'll one day condemn to hell.--Percy

Not to change the subject, but how is this any different than grasping at the nearest argument of convenience? Creationists claim it isn't possible that God might have described creation "in terms we could grasp", but you say he did precisely that when "presenting himself to fallen humanity." If fundamentalist Christians want people to believe them when they claim there are no contradictions then they might start by removing the contradictions from their own explanations. Your religion makes the simple very complicated by inventing ever more metaphysical rationalizations. God is responsible for all creation. You've already conceded that he creates souls that he knows will be condemned to hell, and this would seem to answer the question in the title of this thread.--Percy

You're once again making the mistake of thinking that other religions have to follow some kind of Christian template in order to qualify as legitimate religions. There is no requirement that a religion has to include a Christian-like approach to salvation to be considered a religion.Imagine what you would think if someone argued that the only way to make legitimate music was with a violin, and that no other ways counted. You ask him why a flute isn't a legitimate way to make music, and he replies that a flute doesn't have strings, and the strings aren't played with bow. But that's not the definition of legitimate music, is it? That's the definition of a violin.You're making the same mistake. You think that Chrisitianity is the very definition of legitimate religion. It isn't, at least not by the arguments you've been advancing. You're doing it out of your sincere concern for others, but you seem to think this gives the religious beliefs that underly your motivation some legitimacy. It is a human quality to have concern for others, and whether one invents a concern with a religious basis ("Accept Christ") or some other basis ("Don't let a black cat cross your path" or "Sleep beneath a pyramid") makes no difference if there is no empirical support. The concerns you have for others may seem very real to you, but they don't have anywhere near the same weight as those with empirical support ("Don't jump out a 10th floor window"). I give you credit for honesty, but you only say this because the clear evidence is that God is cruel, and since you can't accept that possibility you say he is not cruel and that someday we'll understand how that reconciles with the evidence. But Christians have been saying, "We'll understand it one day" for millennia. It has become a catchall excuse for those who don't wish to follow the evidence where it leads.--Percy

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? Sure thing! All that's required to show you how it isn't consistent is to quote the parts of the discussion you left out: God created the ability within us to choose. It's an obviously flawed ability that comes up with the wrong answer far more often than not. But even deeper than that, consider that he created my ability and your ability, and yet we've come to different answers. How could that be? Is my ability to choose somehow wanting, perhaps one off the back shelf, while your was top notch, first quality? I know you don't believe that, because that would be equivalent to God pre-condemning me to hell. So where does the difference between us lie? Certainly I'm not responsible, since I didn't create myself. Care to explain?--Percy

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

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