Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...

[William]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 100 by ttruscott]

Of course HE is constrained by HIS commitment to loving righteousness and there is nothing against HIS free will in that at all. HE has the free will to ignore HIS character and do evil but never will because HE is holy, that is, totally committed to the goodness of HIS character. Constraint doesn't always mean no free will.

That is all pure conjecture. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is anything more than spin. God has been created with attributes that conform to the needs of his creators. None of them has ever been demonstrated, hence the unfortunate need for faith. Unfortunate because faith is not a gift or a virtue. It is a sign of gullibility where belief can be established without any genuine, compelling reason.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 100 by ttruscott]

HE did not need to (was not forced to) create us with a free will but HE needed our free will because HE wanted us to be able to freely love and enter a real marriage with HIM - constrained as to HIS purpose, not constrained due to a lack of free will.

We still have no inkling of that purpose. What need would a god have for the love of insignificant, moderately intelligent apes? A god with needs doesn't sound very godlike. If you were capable of all that God can do and knew all that God knows, why would you create humans? It is more likely that needy humans created a god that would love them unconditionally and somehow account for all the bad things they experience. They didn't do such a good job with Yahweh, and not much better when they tried to give him a makeover as Jesus.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 100 by ttruscott]

As an unproven hope it beats believing life is a brief flash of awareness gone forever....

The truth is not always pleasant. Acknowledging that Christianity offers an unproven hope is a start. Millions buy lotto tickets in the hope of gaining wealth but the truth hits them in the face after every draw.

[ttruscott]

What need would a god have for the love of insignificant, moderately intelligent apes?

We are only like this because mankind is sinful and evil. Think instead of the angels Michael and Gabriel...

A god with needs doesn't sound very godlike.

HE did not create us to fulfill a need for us but to share with us HIS reality...ie, it was for us, not HIMself.

If you were capable of all that God can do and knew all that God knows, why would you create humans?

HE did not create us as humans...our humanity is a result of our evil and our being sent to the prison planet earth to isolate us from polite society and restrain us from attacking heaven, again.

We were all created in HIS image with a free will and the perfect ability and opportunity to choose to become good, able to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation or to become evil, eternally unable to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation.

It is more likely that needy humans created a god that would love them unconditionally and somehow account for all the bad things they experience. They didn't do such a good job with Yahweh, and not much better when they tried to give him a makeover as Jesus.

Why are your unproven speculations better than mine???

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 100 by ttruscott]

As an unproven hope it beats believing life is a brief flash of awareness gone forever....

The truth is not always pleasant. Acknowledging that Christianity offers an unproven hope is a start. Millions buy lotto tickets in the hope of gaining wealth but the truth hits them in the face after every draw.

What do you think about my contention that the faith (an unproven belief) that there is no GOD is an unproven hope because the consequences of HIS being real are so onerous?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 104 by ttruscott]

b: What need would a god have for the love of insignificant, moderately intelligent apes?
P: We are only like this because mankind is sinful and evil. Think instead of the angels Michael and Gabriel...

Mankind is not sinful and evil. Sin is an invented concept. There are no angels.

b: A god with needs doesn't sound very godlike.
P: HE did not create us to fulfill a need for us but to share with us HIS reality...ie, it was for us, not HIMself.

b: Why create such pathetic creatures? Why does he have to share his reality with anyone? Sounds needy to me. He had a horde of angels apparently. What was wrong with sharing his reality with them?

b: If you were capable of all that God can do and knew all that God knows, why would you create humans?
P: HE did not create us as humans...our humanity is a result of our evil and our being sent to the prison planet earth to isolate us from polite society and restrain us from attacking heaven, again.

So what did he create us as if not humans? Why are we evil? Prison planet? Surely you jest. The Bible has enough comic book elements in it without inventing more.

P: We were all created in HIS image with a free will and the perfect ability and opportunity to choose to become good, able to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation or to become evil, eternally unable to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation.

His image appears to be evil by all your accounts. And again with that vague purpose. According to you his purpose was for us to appreciate his reality. Having a direct line to God's thinking must be awesome. Some would say it is closer to delusional.

b: It is more likely that needy humans created a god that would love them unconditionally and somehow account for all the bad things they experience. They didn't do such a good job with Yahweh, and not much better when they tried to give him a makeover as Jesus.
P: Why are your unproven speculations better than mine???

I present the Bible as evidence.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 105 by ttruscott]

What do you think about my contention that the faith (an unproven belief) that there is no GOD is an unproven hope because the consequences of HIS being real are so onerous?

Not much. My brain is incapable of accepting something as true when all the information it has processed led to the conclusion it was false. I do not hope there is no god. I have no fear of any god or the alleged consequences of my lack of belief in its existence. To me, there is no afterlife whether it be blissful basking in god-glow or eternal suffering.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Apparently we have. I can go along with Paul's poetic definition. Introducing killing and calling it love reminds me of what Tacitus said of the Roman conquest of Britain: They create a wilderness and call it peace. So here they create savagery and call it love. Yes, my understanding of love differs from yours and mine is correct.

You see, whenever an unbeliever goes on a tangent about what is good, bad..what is love, savagery, etc....all I have to ask is...about two questions..

1. Where are you getting your moral standards from (by which you judge the God of the Bible, and the Bible, period).

2. How are you able to determine whether, in fact, your moral standards are the correct moral standards..and all other standards are false?

When you imply "killing isn't love"...you are presupposing a standard, a standard by which God isn't abiding by. And I'd like an answer to those two questions to see why should God abide by those standards.

The idea is; "this (Jesus' suffering) should be you (us)". Well, if it should be me, I'd rather be thankful for the grace/mercy of the "judge" for offering me a way out, and ensure myself that I won't put myself in a situation where it WOULD be me.

I happily admit to complete ignorance of what might be meant here. It reminds me of my earliest efforts to penetrate the meaning of a Sumerian text.

Well, you do know/understand the meaning of the atonement sacrifice of Jesus...you do understand what it all meant; its significance, right?

Ah, yes - that invisible theoretical shift that nobody noticed. People stubbornly continued to die and get buried. Tsk tsk.

And who said it should be otherwise?

You are arguing that a second wrong nullifies the first, rather than defending against the charge of senselessness.

Well, let me put it to you this way, marco; ultimately, when comparing theism to atheism/naturalism...we are comparing two ideas..

1. The idea that a painter created the painting (theism)

2. The idea that an explosion took place at a paint factory, and with all of that disorder/chaos at the factory, all of the paint fell from the sky and ultimately fell-in-to-place on a very large canvas on the ground, of which patterned itself to resemble the Sistine Chapel ceiling. (atheism, naturalism)

You tell me which one is senseless.

What naturalists might eat for breakfast is not my concern.

It may not be your concern...but you are at the other breakfast spot next door. In other words...you are close enough to them.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 83 by For_The_Kingdom]

So, like I said; the sacrificial atonement was was a dual act of love, on both the Father and the Son's part. Believers acknowledge this..and if you can't acknowledge this as an act of love, then Christianity will continue to not be for you.

No. You missed the whole point. The need for Jesus to be killed was apparently set down by his father, the ultimate arbiter of all things. The fact that he required such a brutal and bloodthirsty act in order to be able to forgive us is what is barbaric and heinous. True love would not require such a scenario. Christians spin the whole event into an act of love in order to justify the worship of a god that is simply not justified. For Jesus to bounce back, good as new a few hours later, simply compounds the absurdity of it all.

Missed your point? What do you mean? I totally acknowledged your point, it is right there in the very quote that you quoted me!!! I said "it was a dual act of love, on both the Father and the Son's part"...and what you didn't quote me on was the scriptures that I provided which backs up what I said.

Instead of acknowledging the specifics of what I said as it directly relates to the main idea of what you said, you ignore it, and continue to go on this tangent about how "the need to be killed was set down by his father".

I had already addressed this. SMH. Anyways.

[DPMartin]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

its not offensive to God to inform you of the truth in the relationship between man and the Lord God. so its man that's got a problem with the truth.

buy your OP suggests the justification of oppressing freedom of speech, that involves the truth.


which is happening now, in many forums like this one. if a posting isn't making unicorn happiness for 8 year old girls, then its offensive. because parents of such let there 8 year old's use forums of all sorts.




but the reason so many God lovers degrade man's view of himself, they know that human nature isn't God's nature though man try's so much to portray himself to himself and others that man is inherently good, which is in man's own judgement.

the earth is God's property, and man has been given God's place in the earth. not to execute man's judgement but to execute God's judgements in the earth.

if one reads the prophets of the OT one gets that the Lord God, Creator and Judge is extremely disappointed in mans refusal to acknowledge that fact. and in that context what can man expect from God.