Intelligent? Design

Originally posted by sonship
Two straight forward answers.

I'm hearing: its purpose is its purpose, and punishment is punishment. I hear no moral content in what you are saying.

Originally posted by FMF
And what is that purpose?

Punishment for not being reconciled to God.

Originally posted by FMF
Some political frustration?

No.

Thanks for insight into some lyrics.

Originally posted by FMF
And what is the purpose of this threat in terms of people who think it's nonsense?

And what is the purpose of torturing non-Christians for eternity after they die?

There is punishment for not being reconciled to God.

It matters to be reconciled to God.
To not be reconciled to God will carry its own eternal self hatred and self torment.

Originally posted by sonship
To not be reconciled to God will carry its own eternal self hatred and self torment.

You mean, for me to find your ideology incoherent, fanciful and irrelevant, somehow engenders eternal self hatred and self torment in me? You are mistaken.

Originally posted by sonship
There is punishment for not being reconciled to God.

This is merely a line of your duckspeak, sonship.

"Punishment" implies "guilt", otherwise it is simply arbitrary cruelty and violence.

What are the tortured people guilty of? What explicit contractual obligation or broken promise are they in breech of? What is their wrongdoing and who is the "victim" of it?

If regurgitating doctrine is all you can muster in answer to these basic questions, then you have no recognizable moral compass.

Originally posted by sonship
Punishment for not being reconciled to God.

You mean you have come to the conclusion that it is "just" and "moral" for them to be tortured forever for not having the same beliefs as you?

Originally posted by sonship
No.

Thanks for insight into some lyrics.

You should reflect on how you were able to be so utterly mistaken about what such straight forward lyrics meant. I think perhaps your religious beliefs are distorting and even perverting your outlook at - seemingly - every level.

You have rendered yourself incapable of speaking credibly on "morality". Your moral core is a dark Colonel Kurtz place.

You have rendered yourself incapable of speaking credibly on "justice". For you it's synonymous with unimaginable violence that - apparently - 'just is what it is, suck it up all you thoughtcriminals' etc.

You have rendered yourself incapable of speaking credibly on the human condition, on culture, on history, on diversity, on religion, on the nature of faith.

You have rendered yourself incapable of understanding a simply ditty of song about an environmentalist who's run out of activist steam and instead you seek to superimpose onto it something mystifyingly dark and depraved about people being tortured for eternity in burning flames.... because I mentioned the word "worm"... which is in the Bible. A quite bizarre instance of confirmation bias. You should reflect.

Originally posted by FMF
You mean you have come to the conclusion that it is "just" and "moral" for them to be tortured forever for not having the same beliefs as you?

You mean you have come to the conclusion that it is "just" and "moral" for them to be tortured forever for not having the same beliefs as you?

When I asked you to explain WHY you think it could be that God and eternal punishment must be mutually exclusive concepts, you complained about my "sidestepping". So it seems now it is the appropriate time for me to re-ask.

Explain, if you think that the concept of a just and righteous and holy God is in principle mutually exclusive to the prospect of eternal punishment -

These two cannot co-exist logically?, morally?, scientifically?, rationally?, ethically? spiritually?

Lay out your case.
Do you think a loving and just God belief is intrinsically incompatible with the prospect of eternal punishment?

Explain Why God could not, cannot, could never, would never .. punish forever.
And as I have very much already, I'll contemplate your reasons for this.

Originally posted by sonship

You mean you have come to the conclusion that it is "just" and "moral" for them to be tortured forever for not having the same beliefs as you?

When I asked you to explain WHY you think it could be that God and eternal punishment must be mutually exclusive concepts, you complained about my "sidestepping". So it seems now it is the appropr ...[text shortened]... ver .. punish forever.
And as I have very much already, I'll contemplate your reasons for this.

Eternal punishment or eternal physical torture?

Both are incompatible with a just and moral God but the latter is much easier to demonstrate.

After all, if the only 'punishment' in the afterlife were the fact that I was not going to be allowed to enter heaven, but I could live in a recognisibly 'earth like' place as I do now but for eternity, you might regard this separation from God as a punishment but I would choose it over heaven without a moment's hesitation.

So you need to clarify what you mean.

Originally posted by sonship

When I asked you to explain WHY you think it could be that God and eternal punishment must be mutually exclusive concepts, you complained about my "sidestepping". So it seems now it is the appropriate time for me to re-ask.
Explain, if you think that the concept of a just and righteous and holy God is in principle mutually exclusive to the prospect of eternal punishment -
These two cannot co-exist logically?, morally?, scientifically?, rationally?, ethically? spiritually?
Lay out your case.
Do you think a loving and just God belief is intrinsically incompatible with the prospect of eternal punishment?
Explain Why God could not, cannot, could never, would never .. punish forever.
And as I have very much already, I'll contemplate your reasons for this.

You have - once again - simply sidestepped the key question: What are the tortured people guilty of? What explicit contractual obligation or broken promise are they in breech of? What is their wrongdoing and who is the "victim" of it?

Originally posted by Rank outsider

Eternal punishment or eternal physical torture?

Suffering is a punishment.
The nature of that suffering we cannot fully know.

But nothing that is non-existence can suffer. The unrepentant sinner cannot be non-existent and be being punished.

Both are incompatible with a just and moral God but the latter is much easier to demonstrate.

Eternal punishment is not incompatible with an eternally just and good God.

I think the mind that reasons this way hopes that it can remain unreconciled to God and then go into non-existence. The Universalists say the biblical "eternal punishment" must be non-existence. But in this case of sinning and remaining unrepentant, unforgiven and unjustified so as to be unreconciled to God, God will not reward with non-existence.

Rather, if in mercy and forebearance there is no desire to seek forgiveness, how much more in punishment will the sinning increase and continue forever.

Then it is the character of the unreconciled which is under judgment. If God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness is forever then punishment on the unholy, unrighteous, and evil character will go on forever. The unrepentant has chosen it so.

The human rebel is mad that he cannot transgress God and be rewarded with non-existence. All the complaining against a good God which punishes "from now on" is anger that the sinner cannot follow iniquity and unbelief with escape into non-existence.

An infinitely good God is not incompatible with eternal punishment. And if God did not keep true to His warning of eternal punishment then how do we know He will keep true to His promise of "eternal life" to the forgiven ?

If God can retract His threat of eternal punishment then there seems nothing that requires Him to fulfill His promise of life eternal.

We just better take Him at His word - His faithful and unbreakable word.

After all, if the only 'punishment' in the afterlife were the fact that I was not going to be allowed to enter heaven, but I could live in a recognisibly 'earth like' place as I do now but for eternity, you might regard this separation from God as a punishment but I would choose it over heaven without a moment's hesitation.

The Bible does not speak about "going to heaven" as the saved man's eternal destiny.
It does speak of being "conformed to the image of His Son".

Probabl;y, if you refuse to allow God's sanctification to conform you to the image of the Son of God that He might be "the Firstborn among many brothers" conformity to Satan may be your destiny in eternal separation from the Savior.

As it stands God to whom the universe belongs with all of its blessings, you wish to shone. But you desire Him to maintain some corner of it where He is not, His eyes are not, His influence is not, and His blessings are enjoyed.

Under this present age of His patience and mercy as He awaits you to believe in the Savior, you DO enjoy His blessed creation without Him.

But it will not be so forever. If you love the beauty of this world, the pleasant breeze, the music of wind in the trees, the gorgeous sunset, the starry night with its wonder, the other nice things of His creation, then you should seek God Himself, the Creator and owner of all these blessings.

"I'll take them, but i won't take God" is only a temporary state of affairs.
And if God's creation can be so enjoyable, how much more God Himself putting His Spirit into your heart that He may be your heavenly Father?

" But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you." (Matt. 6;33)

Originally posted by sonship
Eternal punishment is not incompatible with an eternally just and good God.

Yes it is ... and that you fail or refuse to see it is why you get accused of being morally inept and of promoting strange beliefs.

Originally posted by 667joe
The bottom line is that BPH results from evolution. Theists, claiming that god designed the prostate must admit that the intelligent designer was not good at his job! Evolution is much more likely than an intelligent designer who was clearly not competent!

How are you making that claim? Design would mean the whole universe from placement of stars, planets, the moon down to the composition of the earth would mean they were done with a purpose. Then putting everything together also was with purpose.

Evolution doesn't even touch all the requirements it just assumes it all worked out. How do you suggest one is better?