agnostic vs. atheist

Originally posted by whodey
To create beings that you know will never sin is, in fact, manipulation.
Would free will exist in such a scenrio? I think not.

But never sinning is not the requirement for getting into heaven. Only believing in Jesus is. So why doesn't God only make the people he knows will believe in him and get to heaven? Why make people he knows are destined for hell? Or is it a requirement for you free will that I exist?

Originally posted by telerion
If an omniscient god did this, then it's worse than "careless." It's "calculated" and "cruel."

I think we would demand it because it is just and fair, you pay for your
own crimes. What is calculated or cruel about that?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think we would demand it because it is just and fair, you pay for your
own crimes. What is calculated or cruel about that?
Kelly

What is not calculated and cruel about making someone pay for their own crimes? The only reasons why I support such a system within the human context are:
1. I believe it is useful in behavior modification.
2. Prison keeps the criminals off the streets.
3. I can be cruel.

None of the above are good excuses for God.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think we would demand it because it is just and fair, you pay for your
own crimes. What is calculated or cruel about that?
Kelly

Because this god could have prevented the infinite suffering of any given sinner. If the choice were made available, any reasonable person would choose non-existence over hell. Of course, no one was given such a choice, nevertheless, your god would know that the sinner would prefer non-existence. Against these wishes, he creates future sinners for his own benefit. Now you can add selfish to cruel and calculated.

BTW holding your supposed perfect deity against a standard humans set for themselves is silly. He should outperform it easily. Oddly, he tends to do much worse than humans.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think we would demand it because it is just and fair, you pay for your
own crimes. What is calculated or cruel about that?
Kelly

Actually, no one pays for their 'crimes' against God. The Lord Jesus Christ paid for all of those, each and every one.

Originally posted by telerion
Because this god could have prevented the infinite suffering of any given sinner. If the choice were made available, any reasonable person would choose non-existence over hell. Of course, no one was given such a choice, nevertheless, your god would know that the sinner would prefer non-existence. Against these wishes, he creates future sinners for his ow ...[text shortened]... selves is silly. He should outperform it easily. Oddly, he tends to do much worse than humans.

That formula makes no sense whatsoever, as it eventually reveals God to be unfair--- perposterous and blasphemous. Everyone makes their own choice before God: their way or His. Those who make war against God by choosing their own way suffer the inevitable resulting loss.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Actually, no one pays for their 'crimes' against God. The Lord Jesus Christ paid for all of those, each and every one.

Why did God make him do such a thing?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why did God make him do such a thing?

The Son chose to be the one who would execute the Father's plan. It might have been any one of them; this was determined in eternity past.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The Son chose to be the one who would execute the Father's plan. It might have been any one of them; this was determined in eternity past.

He didn't seem very anxious to in the Garden before His arrest. Why was it necessary for an angel to "strengthen him" according to Luke?

Also, he specifically said it was the will of his Father that he do so, not his. How do you explain this?

EDIT: Luke 22: 41 And he was parted from them about a stone's cast; and he kneeled down and prayed,

42 saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared unto him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.

AND

Matthew 26: 39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.

40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

42 Again a second time he went away, and prayed, saying, My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done.

AND

Mark 14: 35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him.

36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is not calculated and cruel about making someone pay for their own crimes? The only reasons why I support such a system within the human context are:
1. I believe it is useful in behavior modification.
2. Prison keeps the criminals off the streets.
3. I can be cruel.

None of the above are good excuses for God.

What standard would you make God go by?
Kelly

That formula makes no sense whatsoever, as it eventually reveals God to be unfair

I assume this is a bit of your Freaky humor?

Originally posted by telerion
Because this god could have prevented the infinite suffering of any given sinner. If the choice were made available, any reasonable person would choose non-existence over hell. Of course, no one was given such a choice, nevertheless, your god would know that the sinner would prefer non-existence. Against these wishes, he creates future sinners for his ow ...[text shortened]... selves is silly. He should outperform it easily. Oddly, he tends to do much worse than humans.

Yes, this God could have done that! So could the sinner! This God
warned the sinner and the sinner acted the way they wanted
and got what the warning told them was going to happen. I'm still
looking for the crime by God here. What the sinner wants does not
come into play, we do not ask what punishment people would be
willing to take after they commit a crime, we tell them before hand.
We lay out here are the crimes, you do these this will happen to you,
you do those that this will happen, the one committing the crime picks
what they want to do wrong, once they do it, that is that when they are
caught and convicted.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
He didn't seem very anxious to in the Garden before His arrest. Why was it necessary for an angel to "strengthen him" according to Luke?

Also, he specifically said it was the will of his Father that he do so, not his. How do you explain this?

EDIT: Luke 22: 41 And he was parted from them about a stone's cast; and he kneeled down and pray ...[text shortened]... ossible unto thee; remove this cup from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt.[/b]

The Lord Jesus Christ is the unique person of the universe, in that He is both fully God and fully man. The humanity of Christ is revealed in the Garden; in fact, if anything, the passages containing the Garden scene confirm that He was fully human. Only one fully clothed in flesh and blood would be so opposed to losing the same.

The key word, however, is "nonetheless..." or, as your version puts it "howbeit..."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Actually, no one pays for their 'crimes' against God. The Lord Jesus Christ paid for all of those, each and every one.

I may disagree with you here, I believe are all forgiven, but that does
not mean that all will be, because you can reject God and reject the
grace of God. If you reject such a great salvation what will become
of you?
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
[b]That formula makes no sense whatsoever, as it eventually reveals God to be unfair

I assume this is a bit of your Freaky humor?[/b]

You know better than to expect anything humerous from me on this subject.