Originally posted by DarfiusI'd answer them until I got exasperated. Then I'd say I'm tired of answering so many questions and want to do something else. I wouldn't get mad.
Well, imagine if you did. Now imagine if they asked you all day 'how' you did things. Would you get exasperated? Would you answer them every time?
Originally posted by DarfiusThe punishment for murderers should be whatever it takes to keep them from murdering again, and to set an example for others not to murder. The objective would be to avoid the murdering, not to punish. Causing suffering to the murderer would itself be an evil, but one that might be necessary to lessen future murdering.
I can't find a direct quote, but I can make logical assumptions based on your questions and statements.
You find hell to be unfair. What exactly should be the punishment for murderers then?
You want Him to value some people's fre ...[text shortened]... if it fits in to His perfect will. Wouldn't that make Him weak?
Hell, if it exists, is unreasonable because it would cause incredible amounts of suffering for a crime that wasn't that bad in comparison. In addition, the ability of the threat of Hell to lessen murders is tremendously weakened by the fact that it's existence is so easy to doubt.
You want Him to be near enough to give you eternal life, but distant enough not to have to do as He asks.
That sounds nice, sure - assuming the eternal life is a good one.
You want Him to answer any prayer we ask. In other words, you want Him to bow to our will whenever we say, no matter if it fits in to His perfect will. Wouldn't that make Him weak?
No. It would make him nice. Does it make you weak if you give your kid a hug when he asks for one?
but apparently that is what is necessary
That's not apparent to me.
He grades on a curve
Wow, so some people must fail? That's messed up.
For instance, I'm showing you my paper right now and you're denying it not because you don't want the answers, but because you dislike my handwriting.
We're denying it because we aren't convinced the test or the test giver even exists or that there will be any consequences for failing it. In addition, what makes you think you know what the right answers are?
What is more good. Saving someone's earthly life which is just a place for testing (which they already passed) or respecting everyone's free will?
According to your model of how things work, God isn't respecting everyone's free will. He respects the free will of murderers over the free will of their victims not to be murdered.
He sent His thoughts to others to communicate them to you in the Bible. Does that count? If not, why?
The Bible is not a reliable communication from God's mind to mine. If it were, I'd know there was a God from the Biblical reading I've done. I don't, and therefore if it is intended as a communication, it's a poor one.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYep - and I have never told my daughter
I'd answer them until I got exasperated. Then I'd say I'm tired of answering so many questions and want to do something else. I wouldn't get mad.
"because that is the way it is - if you do not stop asking questions you will be punished"
or
"it is wrong to ask that - it says so right here..."
Originally posted by no1marauderShow me where any of the Gospels say Simon carrying the cross the whole way, please.
You are correct that John has Jesus carrying the Cross the entire way in direct contradiction to the Matthew, Mark and Luke which have Simon the Cyrene carrying the cross the entire way. A definite contradiction, although I'm sure Darfius will whip something up to explain it.
I was aware there were post-Resurrection references to Jes ...[text shortened]... odd thing to make up although the showing of the wounds does strengthen the Resurrection story.
Your lying is really beginning to agitate me. I find it more and more difficult to forgive you everytime.
Though you're helping me somewhat, since everyone can see that you're clearly lying to keep up.
Originally posted by NemesioI'd like a link to your "ancient authorities".
Two observations:
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]Barbabbas is described as someone who took part in an insurrection, in which murder was committed. Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19. That would make him more of a revolutionary than a psychotic.
Some of the ancient authorities for St Matthew read 'Jesus Barabbas.'
Do you know what the Aramaic ...[text shortened]... pierced by nails, if for nothing other than
torture value.
Just another 2 cents.
Nemesio[/b]
Sound more like "modern conspiracies." 🙂
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat exactly are you saying? I simply said God will not violate free will.
So God decides who gets to kill who depending how how many people want to do the killing and how many don't want the targets of the killing to be killed? Bull.
There is a difference between praying for yourSELF to be healed and praying for a Muslims head to explode so you regain control of the plane.
If you're never reasonable, you'll never find God. Don't tout reason and employ none.
The punishment for murderers should be whatever it takes to keep them from murdering again, and to set an example for others not to murder. The objective would be to avoid the murdering, not to punish. Causing suffering to the murderer would itself be an evil, but one that might be necessary to lessen future murdering.
So far you agree with Hell.
Hell, if it exists, is unreasonable because it would cause incredible amounts of suffering for a crime that wasn't that bad in comparison. In addition, the ability of the threat of Hell to lessen murders is tremendously weakened by the fact that it's existence is so easy to doubt.
Suddenly Hell is bad. OK. Let me try and keep up with your stances. So who should the judge be? You or God? Since He can see into our hearts, I think it's reasonable to assume that He knows who will or will not REPENT (be truly sorry, not just want to get out) even in hell. I have complete confidence that only those truly deserving go to hell. What would you suggest as proper punishment for rejecting your Maker?
That sounds nice, sure - assuming the eternal life is a good one.
So in other words you want something for nothing. No problem. He did that when He died on the cross for you. But now you have to accept it and show you love Him back by following Him. That is, after all, why we are here in the first place.
No. It would make him nice. Does it make you weak if you give your kid a hug when he asks for one?
Depends. What if giving my kid a hug causes him to be late for class? What if him being late for class causes his teacher to yell at him? What if he gets dejected and acts up, getting suspended? What if this is the beginning of a domino effect between his teacher and him until finally my son is a juvenile delinquent?
God sees the beginning and the end. He knows what's best for us. He WANTS what's best for us. What if we pray for a promotion at work and instead get fired? Should we hate God? What if, while walking home from the unemployment line, you buy a Coke, some chips, and a lottery ticket? What if you hit the jackpot--sole winner--and can retire at 28? Do you still hate God? Do you think He was weak for not giving you that promotion?
It seems like you're not willing to give God a fair chance. Which is unfortunate, because He gives you bias chances, due to His love for you.
Originally posted by DarfiusWho said anything about being tested? I'd get tired of spending my limited time - as I am a limited being - answering questions. God is not a limited being supposedly. He should be able to answer all the questions he wants and still do anything else he wants. If I'm thinking about answering childrens' questions all the time I can't do other things.
The point is you would get tired of them 'testing' you. Thanks for admitting to that.
It's not about a petty dominance trip where I need to show kids who's boss when they 'test my superiority'. That's petty, and these are just children supposedly. I wouldn't waste my time in dominance games like that with little kids. It wouldn't be fair to them even if I did.
Don't tell me what I am admitting to, Darfius. You're mischaracterizing what I said.
You implied God respected everyone's free will equally. If that's the case, then logically if more people will event number one than will event number two, if the two events are not consistent with one another, then number one should win. It would be like a democracy.
It's clear in this world that not everyone gets to do what they choose. People are only free to do that which they are capable of doing, and if someone else chooses to interfere, then one of them has their free will curtailed even more.
Wow, so some people must fail? That's messed up.
Messed up? Sure. But what do you expect if He gives everyone free will? Some will undoubtedly turn away from Him.
We're denying it because we aren't convinced the test or the test giver even exists or that there will be any consequences for failing it. In addition, what makes you think you know what the right answers are?
I'm showing you my test, so clearly it exists. The test giver might not, but would you rather err on the side of caution or throw caution to the wind?
According to your model of how things work, God isn't respecting everyone's free will. He respects the free will of murderers over the free will of their victims not to be murdered.
You're making it sound like God is holding someone down while they get chopped up. Inaction is always the best course of action when trying to respect EVERYONE'S free will. The victim, unfortunately, used their free will to get into the predicament. But if they're a Christian, they have something better in store for them anyway.
The Bible is not a reliable communication from God's mind to mine. If it were, I'd know there was a God from the Biblical reading I've done. I don't, and therefore if it is intended as a communication, it's a poor one.
Tell me, do you go into reading the Bible completely unbias? Do you think parting seas are as possible as parting your hair? If so, and you still didn't come away convinced, I am shocked and dismayed.