Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God cannot love or be Love.

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 11:05:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
God cannot love or be Love.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

If God would have loved Adam and Eve, he would have corrected them. He would not have punished them for becoming as Gods. Punishment without correction is evil and just done for cruelties sake. By immorally withholding eternal life, he could be described as a murderer.

We know from scriptures that ha-adam, Jewish for society, was never given full disclosure by any of the Gods. Indeed, the snake gave more of the facts than God did. God's first sin perhaps. One of omission.

To Adam's sin being passed down.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Strange that God ignores this good advice and have Jesus bear his iniquity. Again, no ability to love is shown.

Would you do that to your child?
Would that be acting in a loving way?

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

What does a God need with setting and receiving a ransom called Jesus?
We could phrase the question to suggest that only an insane God would give humankind such a poor example.

If Christianity chooses to embrace human sacrifice, then they clearly show their immorality.

A theology that says that it is good to punish the innocent and allow the guilty to walk is immoral and un-ethical. Not a loving thing to do at all.
If Adam and Eve should have been corrected and not punished, and they are archetypes of all of us, then God cannot love us either or he would be correcting our behavior.

God did not exhibit love in punishing all of his systems instead of correcting them in Eden.

Love is as love does. ---- Faith without works is dead. James. ---- Love is expressed by works and deeds.
Love without its expression in works and deeds is dead.

God is not doing love and thus cannot love or be Love.

Only ha-adam, humankind, can know love. We cry. God cannot.
Poor loser is not human enough to share human emotion.

Regards
DL
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:13:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 11:05:52 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
God cannot love or be Love.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

If God would have loved Adam and Eve, he would have corrected them. He would not have punished them for becoming as Gods. Punishment without correction is evil and just done for cruelties sake. By immorally withholding eternal life, he could be described as a murderer.

We know from scriptures that ha-adam, Jewish for society, was never given full disclosure by any of the Gods. Indeed, the snake gave more of the facts than God did. God's first sin perhaps. One of omission.

To Adam's sin being passed down.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Strange that God ignores this good advice and have Jesus bear his iniquity. Again, no ability to love is shown.

Would you do that to your child?
Would that be acting in a loving way?

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

What does a God need with setting and receiving a ransom called Jesus?
We could phrase the question to suggest that only an insane God would give humankind such a poor example.

If Christianity chooses to embrace human sacrifice, then they clearly show their immorality.

A theology that says that it is good to punish the innocent and allow the guilty to walk is immoral and un-ethical. Not a loving thing to do at all.
If Adam and Eve should have been corrected and not punished, and they are archetypes of all of us, then God cannot love us either or he would be correcting our behavior.

God did not exhibit love in punishing all of his systems instead of correcting them in Eden.

Love is as love does. ---- Faith without works is dead. James. ---- Love is expressed by works and deeds.
Love without its expression in works and deeds is dead.

God is not doing love and thus cannot love or be Love.

Only ha-adam, humankind, can know love. We cry. God cannot.
Poor loser is not human enough to share human emotion.



Regards
DL

Your statements are inherently flawed as they do not agree with the Christian definition of what God is. Christians hold God to be all benevolent, however he is also completely just.

I also seems that you believe that God should not hold his creation responsible for their sins. Once again this completely goes against God's nature as a just entity. I also believe that you misunderstand original sin. We are not being punished for Adam's and Eve's sin. Rather their sin completely changed our nature. Original sin is not so much something we are punished for but rather a state of being due to the first sin. We are not being held responsible for what they did, but we do suffer the ill effects of their actions.

Now Greatest, I know you are going ask me why this is just. To this I offer a parable. Imaging that a very rich banker with many business contacts is charged with operating a Ponzi scheme. Almost all of his wealth was earned through illegal means. Now as a result from court costs, lawyer fees and paying damages to people he has wronged, the family is now bankrupt and lost all of their possessions. The banker goes to jail and can no longer support the family. Now the son obviously suffers from his fathers action. It changed their family forever. However, even though the son is not held responsible for them, but still feels the effects of the fathers evil.

The first sin is the same way with one caveat, Their sin passed to their children the tenancy to sin. It muddied the waters of human nature. Now God did give us the means to receive his grace and obtain redemption but it still changed humanity to a sinful nature.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:08:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I see.
So man can change his God given nature. How powerful of us.

If straight, can you change to a Gay nature?
If Gay, can you switch to heterosexual?

As to A & E, what sin did they do?
Is a human seeking knowledge a sin?

Regards
DL
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 7:12:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 3:08:14 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
I see.
So man can change his God given nature. How powerful of us.

If straight, can you change to a Gay nature?
If Gay, can you switch to heterosexual?

As to A & E, what sin did they do?
Is a human seeking knowledge a sin?

Regards
DL

Man can deny God's grace through free will. If he could not free will does not exist. We were in a state of grace but our sins against God removed that state of grace.

There are many instances of gay people becoming straight and vise versa. Your statement has no bearing.

Adam and Eve committed the sin of disobedience. God gave them everything in exchange for following his laws. They broke said laws and thus were subject to God's infinite justice.

Is pursuing knowledge in-and-of itself morally wrong? No of course not. However if in the pursuit of knowledge you violate God's law, then it is wrong. If I commit murder in order to have bodies to test for a type of medicine, then I did something wrong. Scientists in Auschwitz experimented on humans in the name of science. Does that make it okay?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 8:54:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 7:12:49 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 12/30/2011 3:08:14 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
I see.
So man can change his God given nature. How powerful of us.

If straight, can you change to a Gay nature?
If Gay, can you switch to heterosexual?

As to A & E, what sin did they do?
Is a human seeking knowledge a sin?

Regards
DL

Man can deny God's grace through free will. If he could not free will does not exist. We were in a state of grace but our sins against God removed that state of grace.

Grace has yet to be shown to be real.
It is part of the Christian fantasy. You seem to think that God would not know who would accept it or not. A limit that you assume is true that you place on God.

There are many instances of gay people becoming straight and vise versa. Your statement has no bearing.

This is an outright lie.

Adam and Eve committed the sin of disobedience. God gave them everything in exchange for following his laws.

For staying slaves you mean and not using their free will.
You might have noticed that all A & E was show they had it and autonomous.
Without doing something of their own will, they could not know they had it to use.


They broke said laws and thus were subject to God's infinite justice.

That is the Christian view. The Jews who own the O T thought the reverse. To them, Eden was man's elevation and not his fall. They have more authority than the Christian usurpers. Right?

Is pursuing knowledge in-and-of itself morally wrong? No of course not. However if in the pursuit of knowledge you violate God's law, then it is wrong.

Hogwash. It is immoral to deny man knowledge. That law was immoral and should have been ignored. You have to ignore your God's immorality as you rightly indicated that to deny knowledge is wrong.
You have to decide to follow good morals or an evil God. Choose.


If I commit murder in order to have bodies to test for a type of medicine, then I did something wrong. Scientists in Auschwitz experimented on humans in the name of science. Does that make it okay?

Is it ok for God to allow his angels to use the earth as a brothel thus forcing his hand to use genocide against man.

Does that make genocide okay?

Regards
DL
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 2:50:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 8:54:13 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/30/2011 7:12:49 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 12/30/2011 3:08:14 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
I see.
So man can change his God given nature. How powerful of us.

If straight, can you change to a Gay nature?
If Gay, can you switch to heterosexual?

As to A & E, what sin did they do?
Is a human seeking knowledge a sin?

Regards
DL

Man can deny God's grace through free will. If he could not free will does not exist. We were in a state of grace but our sins against God removed that state of grace.

Grace has yet to be shown to be real.
It is part of the Christian fantasy. You seem to think that God would not know who would accept it or not. A limit that you assume is true that you place on God.

There are many instances of gay people becoming straight and vise versa. Your statement has no bearing.

This is an outright lie.

Adam and Eve committed the sin of disobedience. God gave them everything in exchange for following his laws.

For staying slaves you mean and not using their free will.
You might have noticed that all A & E was show they had it and autonomous.
Without doing something of their own will, they could not know they had it to use.


They broke said laws and thus were subject to God's infinite justice.

That is the Christian view. The Jews who own the O T thought the reverse. To them, Eden was man's elevation and not his fall. They have more authority than the Christian usurpers. Right?

Is pursuing knowledge in-and-of itself morally wrong? No of course not. However if in the pursuit of knowledge you violate God's law, then it is wrong.

Hogwash. It is immoral to deny man knowledge. That law was immoral and should have been ignored. You have to ignore your God's immorality as you rightly indicated that to deny knowledge is wrong.
You have to decide to follow good morals or an evil God. Choose.


If I commit murder in order to have bodies to test for a type of medicine, then I did something wrong. Scientists in Auschwitz experimented on humans in the name of science. Does that make it okay?

Is it ok for God to allow his angels to use the earth as a brothel thus forcing his hand to use genocide against man.

Does that make genocide okay?

Regards
DL


Alright this is becoming pointless. You use the concept of original sin to disprove that God is love. I used the the teaching that Adam and Eve denied God's Grace and God is also a fully just being to prove my point. However you do not hold my points to be true. This makes the debate worthless. We are debating Christian theology and my points are widely accepted by Christian theologist.

You cannot get into a debate about Christian theology and already assume the teachings to be false. Whether or not God's grace is proven is irrelevant. We are not debating the truth of the religion's teachings. Rather we are debating the the teaching of the religion is contradictory. Thus for the sake of the argument you have to hold these teachings as true. You cannot deny a Christian teaching to prove a contradiction.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Michurro
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 3:18:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Responses
1. If God would have loved Adam and Eve, he would have corrected them. He would not have punished them for becoming as Gods. Punishment without correction is evil and just done for cruelties sake. By immorally withholding eternal life, he could be described as a murderer.

Ah, but can one be corrected through punishment? That you inherently discriminate between the two is permissible, but can you apply such an assertion universally? That our justice system is comprised of punishment for things we ought not do and rehabilitation for things which we cannot prevent indicates that there is in fact some virtue in punishment. Even if that is false, you still must reason that perhaps the punishment was, to an extent an act of good will. That we might be exposed to evil and learn to bear it is the very nature of fraternity, because only through suffering we may then learn to love for our neighbor as their plights are like our own.

2. We know from scriptures that ha-adam, Jewish for society, was never given full disclosure by any of the Gods. Indeed, the snake gave more of the facts than God did. God's first sin perhaps. One of omission.

To make omission a sin is to damn the world, which again is permissible but I do not feel that you are trying to apply your statements to anything beyond the scripture. Generally speaking, withholding truth is not synonymous with bearing false witness, and even if it were, what good could come from eternal knowledge? That we were fated to be sinners, saved only by our grace and left crippled through disobedience? Such truths are better learned than told.

3. To Adam's sin being passed down.

I find it disgusting that this doctrine of "Original Sin" has been accepted by the community, and I agree with you. As the unborn cannot effect the contemporary neither can the former effect latter generations. However, that one generation's sin can proliferate throughout generations is true.

4. None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I'm perplexed by how this qualifies as a contradiction. I felt it to be true that the only true redemption can be obtained from self-determined action, and not the bargaining of another.

In response to your attack on Jesus' sacrifice. Yes, Jesus was the means to and ultimate end, yet what was the alternative? Damn the rest of the world and let evil remain eternal. Or ensure that like the man, evil too is mortal and can die? That such a decision was chosen qualifies God as virtuous at the very least for bearing the evils which he commiteth not by committing one himself.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:53:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 2:50:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:54:13 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/30/2011 7:12:49 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 12/30/2011 3:08:14 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
I see.
So man can change his God given nature. How powerful of us.

If straight, can you change to a Gay nature?
If Gay, can you switch to heterosexual?

As to A & E, what sin did they do?
Is a human seeking knowledge a sin?

Regards
DL

Man can deny God's grace through free will. If he could not free will does not exist. We were in a state of grace but our sins against God removed that state of grace.

Grace has yet to be shown to be real.
It is part of the Christian fantasy. You seem to think that God would not know who would accept it or not. A limit that you assume is true that you place on God.

There are many instances of gay people becoming straight and vise versa. Your statement has no bearing.

This is an outright lie.

Adam and Eve committed the sin of disobedience. God gave them everything in exchange for following his laws.

For staying slaves you mean and not using their free will.
You might have noticed that all A & E was show they had it and autonomous.
Without doing something of their own will, they could not know they had it to use.


They broke said laws and thus were subject to God's infinite justice.

That is the Christian view. The Jews who own the O T thought the reverse. To them, Eden was man's elevation and not his fall. They have more authority than the Christian usurpers. Right?

Is pursuing knowledge in-and-of itself morally wrong? No of course not. However if in the pursuit of knowledge you violate God's law, then it is wrong.

Hogwash. It is immoral to deny man knowledge. That law was immoral and should have been ignored. You have to ignore your God's immorality as you rightly indicated that to deny knowledge is wrong.
You have to decide to follow good morals or an evil God. Choose.


If I commit murder in order to have bodies to test for a type of medicine, then I did something wrong. Scientists in Auschwitz experimented on humans in the name of science. Does that make it okay?

Is it ok for God to allow his angels to use the earth as a brothel thus forcing his hand to use genocide against man.

Does that make genocide okay?

Regards
DL


Alright this is becoming pointless. You use the concept of original sin to disprove that God is love. I used the the teaching that Adam and Eve denied God's Grace and God is also a fully just being to prove my point. However you do not hold my points to be true. This makes the debate worthless. We are debating Christian theology and my points are widely accepted by Christian theologist.

You cannot get into a debate about Christian theology and already assume the teachings to be false. Whether or not God's grace is proven is irrelevant. We are not debating the truth of the religion's teachings. Rather we are debating the the teaching of the religion is contradictory. Thus for the sake of the argument you have to hold these teachings as true. You cannot deny a Christian teaching to prove a contradiction.

I take the theology and show it in clear light from both the good and evil side.
A debate has two sides. You take the good and get upset when I take the evil.
I do not have to believe in your fantasy to debate against it.

Regards
DL
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:07:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So god's Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:45:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 3:18:12 PM, Michurro wrote:
Responses
1. If God would have loved Adam and Eve, he would have corrected them. He would not have punished them for becoming as Gods. Punishment without correction is evil and just done for cruelties sake. By immorally withholding eternal life, he could be described as a murderer.

Ah, but can one be corrected through punishment?

I don't know.
Did those that God killed and murdered all over the bible learn anything?
Can a dead person be corrected?


If one can be corrected through punishment then what does God need with an eternal hell. If punishing corrects, then to continue to punish the corrected would be done just for ther pleasure of torture.

That you inherently discriminate between the two is permissible, but can you apply such an assertion universally?

There are likely exceptions to every rule but this is not a problem for an all knowing God.

That our justice system is comprised of punishment for things we ought not do and rehabilitation for things which we cannot prevent indicates that there is in fact some virtue in punishment.

On a human scale perhaps but not to the supernatural. That would mean that the correction did not take and that would be God's problem and not the victim of his wrath.

Even if that is false, you still must reason that perhaps the punishment was, to an extent an act of good will.

Again. At the human natural level. Not the supernatural.

That we might be exposed to evil and learn to bear it is the very nature of fraternity, because only through suffering we may then learn to love for our neighbor as their plights are like our own.

2. We know from scriptures that ha-adam, Jewish for society, was never given full disclosure by any of the Gods. Indeed, the snake gave more of the facts than God did. God's first sin perhaps. One of omission.

To make omission a sin is to damn the world, which again is permissible but I do not feel that you are trying to apply your statements to anything beyond the scripture. Generally speaking, withholding truth is not synonymous with bearing false witness, and even if it were, what good could come from eternal knowledge?

The lack of eternal stupidity.

That we were fated to be sinners, saved only by our grace and left crippled through disobedience? Such truths are better learned than told.

Fated to be as created. God has fated some for hell even before birth.
Perhaps one of God's best idiocies. What you call disobedience I call rebelling against tyranny and ignorance. Quite a good thing.

Christians see Eden as man's fall.
Jews see Eden as man's elevation.
Who do you think has more authority to interpret Jewish scriptures?


3. To Adam's sin being passed down.

I find it disgusting that this doctrine of "Original Sin" has been accepted by the community, and I agree with you.

You are right. It is a disgusting doctrine.
It is a Christian one that the Jews did not read into their scriptures.


As the unborn cannot effect the contemporary neither can the former effect latter generations. However, that one generation's sin can proliferate throughout generations is true.

4. None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I'm perplexed by how this qualifies as a contradiction. I felt it to be true that the only true redemption can be obtained from self-determined action, and not the bargaining of another.


This speaks to Jesus being the scapegoat for those who would profit from the murder of an innocent man. He is the ransom set by God himself and I call that murder.

In response to your attack on Jesus' sacrifice. Yes, Jesus was the means to and ultimate end, yet what was the alternative?

God had forgiven sin before the death of Jesus. That is one option for him and with a pocket full of miracles, the murder of his son should have been the last possible option. It was not and to base a theology on human sacrifice is barbaric and immoral.
Right?


Damn the rest of the world and let evil remain eternal.

Evil is good. It lets us also know good. Note how in their wisdom, the writers of scriptures put a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Not one of good and another of evil. They knew that the duality was there. So should you.


Or ensure that like the man, evil too is mortal and can die? That such a decision was chosen qualifies God as virtuous at the very least for bearing the evils which he commiteth not by committing one himself.

LOL.
He bore the evil he committed all right.
By having his son murdered instead of stepping up himself and paying his own dues.
Quite the God that. Immoral.

Regards
DL
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 1:04:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:53:10 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/31/2011 2:50:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:54:13 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/30/2011 7:12:49 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 12/30/2011 3:08:14 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
I see.
So man can change his God given nature. How powerful of us.

If straight, can you change to a Gay nature?
If Gay, can you switch to heterosexual?

As to A & E, what sin did they do?
Is a human seeking knowledge a sin?

Regards
DL

Man can deny God's grace through free will. If he could not free will does not exist. We were in a state of grace but our sins against God removed that state of grace.

Grace has yet to be shown to be real.
It is part of the Christian fantasy. You seem to think that God would not know who would accept it or not. A limit that you assume is true that you place on God.

There are many instances of gay people becoming straight and vise versa. Your statement has no bearing.

This is an outright lie.

Adam and Eve committed the sin of disobedience. God gave them everything in exchange for following his laws.

For staying slaves you mean and not using their free will.
You might have noticed that all A & E was show they had it and autonomous.
Without doing something of their own will, they could not know they had it to use.


They broke said laws and thus were subject to God's infinite justice.

That is the Christian view. The Jews who own the O T thought the reverse. To them, Eden was man's elevation and not his fall. They have more authority than the Christian usurpers. Right?

Is pursuing knowledge in-and-of itself morally wrong? No of course not. However if in the pursuit of knowledge you violate God's law, then it is wrong.

Hogwash. It is immoral to deny man knowledge. That law was immoral and should have been ignored. You have to ignore your God's immorality as you rightly indicated that to deny knowledge is wrong.
You have to decide to follow good morals or an evil God. Choose.


If I commit murder in order to have bodies to test for a type of medicine, then I did something wrong. Scientists in Auschwitz experimented on humans in the name of science. Does that make it okay?

Is it ok for God to allow his angels to use the earth as a brothel thus forcing his hand to use genocide against man.

Does that make genocide okay?

Regards
DL


Alright this is becoming pointless. You use the concept of original sin to disprove that God is love. I used the the teaching that Adam and Eve denied God's Grace and God is also a fully just being to prove my point. However you do not hold my points to be true. This makes the debate worthless. We are debating Christian theology and my points are widely accepted by Christian theologist.

You cannot get into a debate about Christian theology and already assume the teachings to be false. Whether or not God's grace is proven is irrelevant. We are not debating the truth of the religion's teachings. Rather we are debating the the teaching of the religion is contradictory. Thus for the sake of the argument you have to hold these teachings as true. You cannot deny a Christian teaching to prove a contradiction.

I take the theology and show it in clear light from both the good and evil side.
A debate has two sides. You take the good and get upset when I take the evil.
I do not have to believe in your fantasy to debate against it.

Regards
DL

If you are going to argue that the precepts of a religion are contradictory, then for the sake of the argument you have to hold the precepts of the religion as true. I'm not saying that you cannot have different views or that you have to believe in the religion. For example, if I were to argue that Allah cannot be A because of B while clearly ignoring C, well I would have failed to prove a contradiction. In fact, I am trying to prove the religion is contradictory while ignoring the teachings of the religion! While this can be accounted for my ignorance of Islamic teaching, when I am correct with teaching C I cannot ignore it if it is a legitimate teaching of the religion. Continuing to ignore teaching C accomplishes nothing for my argument and makes me look like a dumbass.

We were not arguing whether or not God's grace really existed. We were arguing whether or not the teaching of Judeo-Christian theology were contradictory, much like in my hypothetical example of we arguing against Islamic teaching. You cannot state a religion's teaching is contradictory while ignoring all of the other religious text and teaching.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 3:00:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
God does love and because He's loves He hates.. He hates sin! (or else love itself would be god) which answers all your A&E errors..

God cannot cry?

Shortest verse in the Bible?

Jesus wept.
The Cross.. the Cross.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 3:45:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 3:00:17 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
God does love and because He's loves He hates.. He hates sin! (or else love itself would be god) which answers all your A&E errors..

God cannot cry?

Shortest verse in the Bible?

Jesus wept.

I do hear he loves the sinners and hates sin.

What does he apply his wrath to?
Sin or the sinner.

Love is as love does.
Sending someone you love to eternal torture is hardly a loving act.

Regards
DL
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 3:53:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 3:45:17 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/1/2012 3:00:17 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
God does love and because He's loves He hates.. He hates sin! (or else love itself would be god) which answers all your A&E errors..

God cannot cry?

Shortest verse in the Bible?

Jesus wept.

I do hear he loves the sinners and hates sin.

What does he apply his wrath to?
Sin or the sinner.

Love is as love does.
Sending someone you love to eternal torture is hardly a loving act.

Regards
DL

Then you have a rudimentary understanding of God's infinite justice, the nature of sin, and hell. Through sin we reject God and his salvation. God cannot save people who don't want to be saved because of their free will. God does not send us to hell. People bound for hell send themselves there because of the denial of God's love and sacrifice. Hell is simply the absence of God. You would like it there. :)
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 4:52:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 3:53:31 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 3:45:17 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/1/2012 3:00:17 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
God does love and because He's loves He hates.. He hates sin! (or else love itself would be god) which answers all your A&E errors..

God cannot cry?

Shortest verse in the Bible?

Jesus wept.

I do hear he loves the sinners and hates sin.

What does he apply his wrath to?
Sin or the sinner.

Love is as love does.
Sending someone you love to eternal torture is hardly a loving act.

Regards
DL

Then you have a rudimentary understanding of God's infinite justice, the nature of sin, and hell. Through sin we reject God and his salvation. God cannot save people who don't want to be saved because of their free will. God does not send us to hell. People bound for hell send themselves there because of the denial of God's love and sacrifice. Hell is simply the absence of God. You would like it there. :)

People send themselves to Hell ( a bad place, for all eternity?)? Mmm. So God is holding a loaded gun to my head, saying "you had better believe what I tell you or I will pull the trigger. Don't make me do it!" If I then refuse to believe God and he pulls the trigger and puts a bullet between my eyes, you cannot then say that I have committed suicide.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 4:53:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:53:10 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/31/2011 2:50:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Alright this is becoming pointless. You use the concept of original sin to disprove that God is love. I used the the teaching that Adam and Eve denied God's Grace and God is also a fully just being to prove my point. However you do not hold my points to be true. This makes the debate worthless. We are debating Christian theology and my points are widely accepted by Christian theologist.

You cannot get into a debate about Christian theology and already assume the teachings to be false. Whether or not God's grace is proven is irrelevant. We are not debating the truth of the religion's teachings. Rather we are debating the the teaching of the religion is contradictory. Thus for the sake of the argument you have to hold these teachings as true. You cannot deny a Christian teaching to prove a contradiction.

I take the theology and show it in clear light from both the good and evil side.
A debate has two sides. You take the good and get upset when I take the evil.
I do not have to believe in your fantasy to debate against it.

Wow, you clearly don't understand debate scope. It is perfectly acceptable to enter a debate in which both sides agree on a certain set of assumptions. When in a debate, only certain propositions are called into question, you don't call everything into question in one debate because then you'd have 500 debates happening at once when only one thing is the focus.

In this case, the question is, is Christian doctrine consistent with itself. NOT "is Christianity true."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:18:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 4:53:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:53:10 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/31/2011 2:50:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Alright this is becoming pointless. You use the concept of original sin to disprove that God is love. I used the the teaching that Adam and Eve denied God's Grace and God is also a fully just being to prove my point. However you do not hold my points to be true. This makes the debate worthless. We are debating Christian theology and my points are widely accepted by Christian theologist.

You cannot get into a debate about Christian theology and already assume the teachings to be false. Whether or not God's grace is proven is irrelevant. We are not debating the truth of the religion's teachings. Rather we are debating the the teaching of the religion is contradictory. Thus for the sake of the argument you have to hold these teachings as true. You cannot deny a Christian teaching to prove a contradiction.

I take the theology and show it in clear light from both the good and evil side.
A debate has two sides. You take the good and get upset when I take the evil.
I do not have to believe in your fantasy to debate against it.

Wow, you clearly don't understand debate scope. It is perfectly acceptable to enter a debate in which both sides agree on a certain set of assumptions. When in a debate, only certain propositions are called into question, you don't call everything into question in one debate because then you'd have 500 debates happening at once when only one thing is the focus.

In this case, the question is, is Christian doctrine consistent with itself. NOT "is Christianity true."

Really how can you debate someone if you don't agree on the set of assumptions. It just becomes mindless and petty yelling
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:41:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:18:26 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 4:53:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:53:10 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/31/2011 2:50:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Alright this is becoming pointless. You use the concept of original sin to disprove that God is love. I used the the teaching that Adam and Eve denied God's Grace and God is also a fully just being to prove my point. However you do not hold my points to be true. This makes the debate worthless. We are debating Christian theology and my points are widely accepted by Christian theologist.

You cannot get into a debate about Christian theology and already assume the teachings to be false. Whether or not God's grace is proven is irrelevant. We are not debating the truth of the religion's teachings. Rather we are debating the the teaching of the religion is contradictory. Thus for the sake of the argument you have to hold these teachings as true. You cannot deny a Christian teaching to prove a contradiction.

I take the theology and show it in clear light from both the good and evil side.
A debate has two sides. You take the good and get upset when I take the evil.
I do not have to believe in your fantasy to debate against it.

Wow, you clearly don't understand debate scope. It is perfectly acceptable to enter a debate in which both sides agree on a certain set of assumptions. When in a debate, only certain propositions are called into question, you don't call everything into question in one debate because then you'd have 500 debates happening at once when only one thing is the focus.

In this case, the question is, is Christian doctrine consistent with itself. NOT "is Christianity true."

There are clear contradictions, so it isn't... I don't get why that needs to be debated to a ridiculous degree.

For christian doctrine to say "God loves you" or "God is love" contradicts a ridiculously large portion of the old testament, as well as the concept of sin. You can't call "If you ignore the flaw that I created you with, I won't punish you for eternity" love by any sane definition of the word.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:58:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
His wrath is at sinners because of our sin, but His wrath was poured out on Jesus..

You either accuse Him of being a dictator or giving you what you freely choose, rejecting Him. (hell)

You can't have it both ways..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:12:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:58:40 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
His wrath is at sinners because of our sin, but His wrath was poured out on Jesus..

You either accuse Him of being a dictator or giving you what you freely choose, rejecting Him. (hell)

You can't have it both ways..

Of course he's a dictator. He tells us to believe in him or be sent to hell, and he presumes to thrust morals that make zero sense onto us. If god is omnipotent and omniscient, then free will is an illusion.

I reject him for two reasons. One, because there's absolutely no convincing argument or evidence that points to the existence of a deity. And two, even if there was evidence or argument for his existence, he's a cruel, jealous and terrible being. Why should anyone worship and aspire to that?
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:15:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your missing the point. Christians can't claim that god is love or is loving and also claim that the bible is his word, because the bible contains so many contradictions to the aforementioned statement. And since christian doctrine is based on the bible, to say god is love or is loving contradicts that doctrine as well.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:17:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:41:38 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/1/2012 6:18:26 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 4:53:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:53:10 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/31/2011 2:50:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Alright this is becoming pointless. You use the concept of original sin to disprove that God is love. I used the the teaching that Adam and Eve denied God's Grace and God is also a fully just being to prove my point. However you do not hold my points to be true. This makes the debate worthless. We are debating Christian theology and my points are widely accepted by Christian theologist.

You cannot get into a debate about Christian theology and already assume the teachings to be false. Whether or not God's grace is proven is irrelevant. We are not debating the truth of the religion's teachings. Rather we are debating the the teaching of the religion is contradictory. Thus for the sake of the argument you have to hold these teachings as true. You cannot deny a Christian teaching to prove a contradiction.

I take the theology and show it in clear light from both the good and evil side.
A debate has two sides. You take the good and get upset when I take the evil.
I do not have to believe in your fantasy to debate against it.

Wow, you clearly don't understand debate scope. It is perfectly acceptable to enter a debate in which both sides agree on a certain set of assumptions. When in a debate, only certain propositions are called into question, you don't call everything into question in one debate because then you'd have 500 debates happening at once when only one thing is the focus.

In this case, the question is, is Christian doctrine consistent with itself. NOT "is Christianity true."

There are clear contradictions, so it isn't... I don't get why that needs to be debated to a ridiculous degree.

For christian doctrine to say "God loves you" or "God is love" contradicts a ridiculously large portion of the old testament, as well as the concept of sin. You can't call "If you ignore the flaw that I created you with, I won't punish you for eternity" love by any sane definition of the word.

Like what specifically? God is love but he is also just. If we do something to earn his condemnation then we deserved it.

God also knows we have a disposition to sin. That is why He offered his son as a sacrifice for our sins. You also fail to consider that we can seek penance at anytime. Lets use a parenting example. My mom loves me and whats the best for me. She attempts to give me everything I need to make a success out of myself. She tries to teach me to work hard, stay off drugs ect. She is compassionate and loving but also stern and just. I reject her teachings and I become lazy and on drugs. Soon I am destitute and homeless. Is it my mom's fault? No! God is the same way. God cannot force you to accept his grace. However choosing to live a life ofevil, which is the absence of good and thus the absence of God, leads to a punishment where God is not there. Hell.

Now lets say I go to my mom and beg her forgiveness. She loves me so she accepts. I am forgiven my wrongdoing. I use the gifts she gives me and I become a success. God works the same way. He forgives our wrongdoing and once again extends his grace to us.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:37:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 3:53:31 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 3:45:17 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/1/2012 3:00:17 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
God does love and because He's loves He hates.. He hates sin! (or else love itself would be god) which answers all your A&E errors..

God cannot cry?

Shortest verse in the Bible?

Jesus wept.

I do hear he loves the sinners and hates sin.

What does he apply his wrath to?
Sin or the sinner.

Love is as love does.
Sending someone you love to eternal torture is hardly a loving act.

Regards
DL

Then you have a rudimentary understanding of God's infinite justice, the nature of sin, and hell.

No way. I cannot fathom the un-fathomable. I leave that to deluded Christians.
Through sin we reject God and his salvation.

B S.

God cannot save people who don't want to be saved because of their free will.

Yet killing them does not touch their free will to live to you. Sigh.

God does not send us to hell. People bound for hell send themselves there because of the denial of God's love and sacrifice. Hell is simply the absence of God. You would like it there. :)

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or " it's all man's fault".

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:42:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:58:40 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
His wrath is at sinners because of our sin, but His wrath was poured out on Jesus..

You either accuse Him of being a dictator or giving you what you freely choose, rejecting Him. (hell)

You can't have it both ways..

Yep. Nothing like punishing the innocent so that the guilty can walk.
Try that in real life .
Strange that man's laws are so much better than God's.
We believe in punishing the guilty. How strange.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:50:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 7:17:01 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Now lets say I go to my mom and beg her forgiveness. She loves me so she accepts. I am forgiven my wrongdoing. I use the gifts she gives me and I become a success. God works the same way. He forgives our wrongdoing and once again extends his grace to us.

How confy and cozy for you. Feels good eh.

You ignore that it is to the one you sinned against to forgive and not some third party.

If you are forgiven for a theft by God, does that give closure and restitution to the one you stole from? No it does not.
If you do the restitution and get forgiven by your victim, then you are forgiven and have no need for your security blanket God to also forgive you.

Regards
DL
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:11:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 7:17:01 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 6:41:38 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/1/2012 6:18:26 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 4:53:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:53:10 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/31/2011 2:50:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Alright this is becoming pointless. You use the concept of original sin to disprove that God is love. I used the the teaching that Adam and Eve denied God's Grace and God is also a fully just being to prove my point. However you do not hold my points to be true. This makes the debate worthless. We are debating Christian theology and my points are widely accepted by Christian theologist.

You cannot get into a debate about Christian theology and already assume the teachings to be false. Whether or not God's grace is proven is irrelevant. We are not debating the truth of the religion's teachings. Rather we are debating the the teaching of the religion is contradictory. Thus for the sake of the argument you have to hold these teachings as true. You cannot deny a Christian teaching to prove a contradiction.

I take the theology and show it in clear light from both the good and evil side.
A debate has two sides. You take the good and get upset when I take the evil.
I do not have to believe in your fantasy to debate against it.

Wow, you clearly don't understand debate scope. It is perfectly acceptable to enter a debate in which both sides agree on a certain set of assumptions. When in a debate, only certain propositions are called into question, you don't call everything into question in one debate because then you'd have 500 debates happening at once when only one thing is the focus.

In this case, the question is, is Christian doctrine consistent with itself. NOT "is Christianity true."

There are clear contradictions, so it isn't... I don't get why that needs to be debated to a ridiculous degree.

For christian doctrine to say "God loves you" or "God is love" contradicts a ridiculously large portion of the old testament, as well as the concept of sin. You can't call "If you ignore the flaw that I created you with, I won't punish you for eternity" love by any sane definition of the word.

Like what specifically? God is love but he is also just. If we do something to earn his condemnation then we deserved it.

God also knows we have a disposition to sin. That is why He offered his son as a sacrifice for our sins. You also fail to consider that we can seek penance at anytime. Lets use a parenting example. My mom loves me and whats the best for me. She attempts to give me everything I need to make a success out of myself. She tries to teach me to work hard, stay off drugs ect. She is compassionate and loving but also stern and just. I reject her teachings and I become lazy and on drugs. Soon I am destitute and homeless. Is it my mom's fault? No! God is the same way. God cannot force you to accept his grace. However choosing to live a life ofevil, which is the absence of good and thus the absence of God, leads to a punishment where God is not there. Hell.

Of course he knows we have a disposition of sin, he put it there. If he is all knowing and all powerful, free will does not exist. If free will doesn't exist, then it is god that has given us this sin. He then blames it on us, and tells us to repent or go to hell.

That is not love, nor justice. That is straight up cruelty and ironically evil.

You've also used a false analogy. The mum teaches her child not to do drugs because he could end up homeless for a logical reason, drugs mess you up. That logical reason is not present in rejecting god's 'love' for reasons I've already outlined.

And just for the record, I haven't chosen a life of evil. I'm kind to people, I give some money to a homeless guy every week, I recycle. The only thing I do on a regular basis that goes against what you proclaim god's will to be is reject faith, reject belief without verifiable evidence. To call that evil is to call logical thinking and rational discussion evil.

Now lets say I go to my mom and beg her forgiveness. She loves me so she accepts. I am forgiven my wrongdoing. I use the gifts she gives me and I become a success. God works the same way. He forgives our wrongdoing and once again extends his grace to us.

The difference is the mum did not create the drugs or tempt her child with them, god did.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:22:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has."
Martin Luther

He was right and Christians embrace his LOL. good advice.

They never talk of the following though.

Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ.
Martin Luther

Regards
DL
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 4:22:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 3:22:26 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has."
Martin Luther

He was right and Christians embrace his LOL. good advice.

They never talk of the following though.

Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ.
Martin Luther

Regards
DL

Marti Luther was crazy. No one is innocent, not even Mohamed.