T
tonyrey
Guest
Unfortunately not. You may be lucky if you ask a moderator but you’ll need a very good reason for doing so. Is it worth the trouble?Is it possible to erase a post?
Unfortunately not. You may be lucky if you ask a moderator but you’ll need a very good reason for doing so. Is it worth the trouble?Is it possible to erase a post?
Why not try to scare you? (Not that I was!) Are you not confident in your claim that you have nothing to fear? If you are reasonable, you certainly shouldn’t be confident in it, since your argument for that claim is obviously silly. (And I assume you recognize that - please correct me if I’m wrong.)I have nothing to fear. Either God is reasonable, and then we shall be good buddies, or God is the tyrannical, egotistical, self-centered being of the Bible. If he is reasonable, I have nothing to fear, and that is the bet I am making. If I am wrong, and you are right, then there will be some nice everlasting fire, but that is ok. I like warmth, and hate cold.Oh, and don’t try to scare me.
Good pointUnfortunately not. You may be lucky if you ask a moderator but you’ll need a very good reason for doing so. Is it worth the trouble?
Or a third option - God is neither your buddy, nor an egotistical self-centred being, but rather, He is the one in charge in Heaven, and He is the one who decides who gets in, or not, based on His criteria; not the applicant’s criteria - just like the principal of an elite school, or the owner of a prestigious business gets to decide who gets in, and who does not - if you don’t qualify to join, it’s not about “being mean” to you; it’s just that, hey, you’re not qualified - not His problem, nor His fault.I have nothing to fear. Either God is reasonable, and then we shall be good buddies, or God is the tyrannical, egotistical, self-centered being of the Bible. If he is reasonable, I have nothing to fear, and that is the bet I am making. If I am wrong, and you are right, then there will be some nice everlasting fire, but that is ok. I like warmth, and hate cold.Oh, and don’t try to scare me.
God is supposed to be way more than our “buddy.” he is supposed to be our lover. He is the one who is supposed to be there when everyone else leaves us. It is has nothing to do with being “qualified.” God loves us unconditionally. Nothing we can do can make God not love us with an infinite love.Or a third option - God is neither your buddy, nor an egotistical self-centred being, but rather, He is the one in charge in Heaven, and He is the one who decides who gets in, or not, based on His criteria; not the applicant’s criteria - just like the principal of an elite school, or the owner of a prestigious business gets to decide who gets in, and who does not - if you don’t qualify to join, it’s not about “being mean” to you; it’s just that, hey, you’re not qualified - not His problem, nor His fault.![]()
Keep in mind, that the “everlasting fire” is intolerable, pure torture, infinite loneliness, and doom greater than the greatest sufferings ever endured on earth, and that these pains last for all eternity.I have nothing to fear. Either God is reasonable, and then we shall be good buddies, or God is the tyrannical, egotistical, self-centered being of the Bible. If he is reasonable, I have nothing to fear, and that is the bet I am making. If I am wrong, and you are right, then there will be some nice everlasting fire, but that is ok. I like warmth, and hate cold.Oh, and don’t try to scare me.
Right, but if we don’t return that love, is that God’s fault? If we are nitpicking Him to death, instead of loving Him, who is separating us from Heaven? Not God.God is supposed to be way more than our “buddy.” he is supposed to be our lover. He is the one who is supposed to be there when everyone else leaves us. It is has nothing to do with being “qualified.” God loves us unconditionally. Nothing we can do can make God not love us with an infinite love.
Of course! Which is why when someone says they have “no evidence” of God, then I have to wonder whether they are even paying attention at all.He takes a tremendous interest in us being in heaven. He constantly seeks us out. He never tires of calling us at every moment of our lives. He is inviting us to know him and to love him.
So you too are appealing to these lazy indeterminate notions of “truly informed decision” and “enough information” - but you can’t possibly reasonably claim that God has not given us enough information to make a truly informed decision without explaining what is entailed (1) by the notion “enough information” and (2) by the notion “truly informed decision.” In other words, instead of complaining about *God *not giving *us *“enough information,” you should be concerned about the fact that YOU have not given us enough information - indeed, you do not HAVE enough information - to make an informed claim (or even an intelligible claim) about the alleged insufficiency of the information God has given us. Capisci?very scary to be making a “bet”.No human being should have to make such a bet with such HUGE stakes. (eternal destiny) God has not given us enough information to make a truly informed decision. We have to place our stake somewhere, with God or against him. But God hasn’t given us enough information for it to not be a “bet”, but an actual choice. It seems very unreasonable to me.
Your notion of God must be false then! As Einstein said, God does not play with dice. Those who reject God in favour of themselves know exactly what they are doing…But God hasn’t given us enough information for it to not be a “bet”, but an actual choice. It seems very unreasonable to me.
False claim. Evidence is evidence in whatever form or method it arrives.Except that there was no evidence. It is ALL hearsay.![]()
Do we read the same Bible? I don’t think so. I read it the way I said it. I see no benevolence and no reason at all.Exactly my point about atheists using the Bible.
You forgot this option:
He is the reasonable, omnibenevolent of the Bible.
Sure. That is the only reality we experience.In other words it presupposes the physical universe is the sole reality.
That is not “faith”. It is a reasonable conclusion.All rational arguments are based on faith in the power of reason.
Then who is the one who makes the correct interpretation? And how do you tell the correct interpretation from the incorrect one? I hope you find these questions reasonable.Ok… You did NOT get my point or see the difference. I am not saying the Church’s interpretation is the correct one.
You read it in context (including the context of who wrote it, what assumptions they would have been making, and the original intended audience) and you use logical deduction based on the full text and the whole context, rather than pulling a few verses out here and there, reading them as if the author were a Hollywood movie producer, and you were the intended audience, to conclude that God is “unreasonable.”Then who is the one who makes the correct interpretation? And how do you tell the correct interpretation from the incorrect one? I hope you find these questions reasonable.![]()
No, you did not. Jmcrae did. But I consider a scare tactics dumb and unreasonable.Why not try to scare you? (Not that I was!)
I don’t think it is silly. A God who is so immensely knowledgable and powerful cannot consider our feelings toward him important. (If you could communicate with ants, would you care about their “adoration”?) Also, according to Catholic teaching God instilled our reasoning power in us. I think it is “silly” to assume that God prefers that we suspend our reasoning powers (given by him) and wishes that we rely on unsubstantitated “faith”.Are you not confident in your claim that you have nothing to fear? If you are reasonable, you certainly shouldn’t be confident in it, since your argument for that claim is obviously silly. (And I assume you recognize that - please correct me if I’m wrong.)
I am willing to accept this. But in this case, why did he not communicate the requirements clearly and unambiguously? And, please, do not say that he did. It is neither clear nor unambiguous for me. I do not accept the Bible, because it is a whole set of self-contradicting nonsense.Or a third option - God is neither your buddy, nor an egotistical self-centred being, but rather, He is the one in charge in Heaven, and He is the one who decides who gets in, or not, based on His criteria; not the applicant’s criteria - just like the principal of an elite school, or the owner of a prestigious business gets to decide who gets in, and who does not - if you don’t qualify to join, it’s not about “being mean” to you; it’s just that, hey, you’re not qualified - not His problem, nor His fault.![]()
He came down from Heaven in Person, and explained it out to 12 men, whom He then appointed as the leaders of His Church. He was then crucified, died, and rose from the dead, in fulfillment of prophecy.I am willing to accept this. But in this case, why did he not communicate the requirements clearly and unambiguously? And, please, do not say that he did. It is neither clear nor unambiguous for me. I do not accept the Bible, because it is a whole set of self-contradicting nonsense.
Is this the hallmark of a “loving” person? Sheeesh! As they say: “thanks, but no, thanks”.Keep in mind, that the “everlasting fire” is intolerable, pure torture, infinite loneliness, and doom greater than the greatest sufferings ever endured on earth, and that these pains last for all eternity.
What is enough information is decided by each person. You cannot decide for me, and I cannot decide for you. Moreover, not even God can make that decision for me.very scary to be making a “bet”.No human being should have to make such a bet with such HUGE stakes. (eternal destiny) God has not given us enough information to make a truly informed decision. We have to place our stake somewhere, with God or against him. But God hasn’t given us enough information for it to not be a “bet”, but an actual choice. It seems very unreasonable to me.
Again: “who makes the correct interpretation?”. How do you decide which is the correct interpretation and which is not? Details, please.You read it in context (including the context of who wrote it, what assumptions they would have been making, and the original intended audience) and you use logical deduction based on the full text and the whole context, rather than pulling a few verses out here and there, reading them as if the author were a Hollywood movie producer, and you were the intended audience, to conclude that God is “unreasonable.”
God didn’t create Hell. Hell exists because there are spiritual beings - people and angels - who don’t love God, or who love themselves more than they love God.Is this the hallmark of a “loving” person? Sheeesh! As they say: “thanks, but no, thanks”.