To What Extent

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Assume the inevitability of destruction destined for your child were they given to a certain unnamed activity.

To what extent would you go to assure they abstained from this activity? What tactics would you employ to adequately hedge them from assured destruction?

Is the destruction imminent, or far down the road?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
But God is not analogous with a parent because god is omnipotent so he created the bad apples and errant behavior patterns, behavior is bad because god decides it is bad, if it leads to destruction it is a destruction that god brought into being.

So when you use that analogy, you have to assume a parent who is trying to save the child from the parent and it gets really weird.

Everything God creates is good. These good apples can become bad apples and infect other apples causing them to go bad. God provides us with a mind with free will to do good or bad according to our choosing. Our actions effect many other actions that we or others may have to bear the consequences. We have ourselves to blame for the bad things in the world. for even the Devil does not make us do bad.

I do not see my analogy as weird, it is your thinking that is really weird, in my opinion. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The ulimate punishment in our system is the death penalty, when the individual is considered not rehabilitatable and no longer useful to society.

I disagree. I believe the purpose of the death penalty includes the threat it provides to possible offenders as well as acting as a prevention from further crimes that might be committed by the offender. I don't think 'usefulness to the society' has anything to do with it - or we might have given several politicians the death penalty long ago 🙂.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. I believe the purpose of the death penalty includes the threat it provides to possible offenders as well as acting as a prevention from further crimes that might be committed by the offender. I don't think 'usefulness to the society' has anything to do with it - or we might have given several politicians the death penalty long ago 🙂.

Okay, maybe so. They maybe considered far too dangerous to be allowed to live or whatever the reason man decides.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, maybe so. They maybe considered far too dangerous to be allowed to live or whatever the reason man decides.

Exactly, so it is not about 'usefulness to society' but rather 'threat to society'.

So what threat do I pose to God if I do not believe in Jesus before I die, that someone who does believe in Jesus on his death bed, does not pose.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Exactly, so it is not about 'usefulness to society' but rather 'threat to society'.

So what threat do I pose to God if I do not believe in Jesus before I die, that someone who does believe in Jesus on his death bed, does not pose.

I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing. However, from my point of view, you pose a threat to your own soul and your rejection of Christ is not useful to society, because of its bad influence on others in the society. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing. However, from my point of view, you pose a threat to your own soul and your rejection of Christ is not useful to society, because of its bad influence on others in the society. 😏

You clearly do not understand.
You claim that God will give my soul a death sentence after I die. So, if the purpose of a death sentence is to stop threats to society, then what society am I threatening after I die. I hardly think I would be an atheist in heaven trying to convince other heaven inmates that God doesn't exist. And even if that was the case, the so called 'threat' would be rather silly because you are essentially saying: souls must be killed because if they aren't they will convince other souls to believe the same which will lead to them being killed. If God simply stops killing atheists, then atheism stops being a threat to the heavenly society and there is no longer any reason to kill atheists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly do not understand.
You claim that God will give my soul a death sentence after I die. So, if the purpose of a death sentence is to stop threats to society, then what society am I threatening after I die. I hardly think I would be an atheist in heaven trying to convince other heaven inmates that God doesn't exist. And even if that was the case ...[text shortened]... s being a threat to the heavenly society and there is no longer any reason to kill atheists.

The claim is that you have chosen death over life. If you deliberately murder 10 innocent people, you know what the law says, so you have chosen your fate when you choose to ignore the law. So when you choose to ignore God, you have chosen death in the lake of fire.

Your decisions and actions while you are alive in the body, effect other living souls, either for good or for evil. This is how you are a threat to society. After you die in the body, you can not have the same influence. However, some souls, because they were looked up to by some still living, can still be an influence for good or for evil. Satan is not an Atheist, but he is still a threat to both man and God, because he refuses to obey the laws of God.

I have this feeling that we still will not understand each other because of our different worldviews.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The claim is that you have chosen death over life. If you deliberately murder 10 innocent people, you know what the law says, so you have chosen your fate when you choose to ignore the law. So when you choose to ignore God, you have chosen death in the lake of fire.

But you said this death in the lake of fire has as its purpose 'the protection of society'. Now you seem to be shying away from that claim and trying to make it out as a personal choice (which it isn't).

Your decisions and actions while you are alive in the body, effect other living souls, either for good or for evil.
Which is irrelevant.

This is how you are a threat to society.
Which is in no way prevented by the lake of fire. Those that do not end up in the lake of fire do not come back to present society.

After you die in the body, you can not have the same influence.
Hence there is no need for a lake of fire.

However, some souls, because they were looked up to by some still living, can still be an influence for good or for evil.
I can still haunt you after I die? Thats good news!

Satan is not an Atheist, but he is still a threat to both man and God, because he refuses to obey the laws of God.
How is this even remotely relevant?

I have this feeling that we still will not understand each other because of our different worldviews.
I have this feeling that you are making it up as you go along because you don't understand what you are talking about yourself. I don't buy the 'different world views' excuse.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you said this death in the lake of fire has as its purpose 'the protection of society'. Now you seem to be shying away from that claim and trying to make it out as a personal choice (which it isn't).

[b]Your decisions and actions while you are alive in the body, effect other living souls, either for good or for evil.
Which is irrelevant.

[b ...[text shortened]... tand what you are talking about yourself. I don't buy the 'different world views' excuse.[/b]

YOU
But you said this death in the lake of fire has as its purpose 'the protection of society'. Now you seem to be shying away from that claim and trying to make it out as a personal choice (which it isn't).

ME
I recall saying that the first death of the person in the body is a help in protecting that society. The second death in the lake of fire protects the future society of the Kingdom of God. Anyway, this is what I mean.

YOU
I can still haunt you after I die? Thats good news!

ME
Hence, the need for the second death in the lake of fire! HalleluYah !!!

ME
Satan is not an Atheist, but he is still a threat to both man and God, because he refuses to obey the laws of God.

YOU
How is this even remotely relevant?

ME
Hence, the need for the second death in the lake of fire! HalleluYah !!!

See, I told you you would not understand because of our different worldviews.

Your worldview: There is not God and the universe, the Earth, and life just happened over billions, or perhaps trillions of years.

My worldview: There is an eternal existing God that created the heavens and the earth and all living things in 6 days and this happened a little over 6,000 years ago, as recorded in the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
See, I told you you would not understand because of our different worldviews.

It is not because of different world views, it is because you are not making any sense and you know it. Now you think you can get away with talking absolute nonsense then claim I am simply not understanding you because of my different world view.
I also know that you got the idea from Robbie who also thought he could get you out of talking nonsense by the 'different world views' claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not because of different world views, it is because you are not making any sense and you know it. Now you think you can get away with talking absolute nonsense then claim I am simply not understanding you because of my different world view.
I also know that you got the idea from Robbie who also thought he could get you out of talking nonsense by the 'different world views' claim.

Perhaps, it is because you are from Africa. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Perhaps, it is because you are from Africa. 😏

No, its because you, like most theists, are unable to explain what purpose punishment after death serves. But it is central to your religion so you are forced to make stuff up to try to justify it. Your story then gets so convoluted that it contradicts itself and you have no way out as admitting that you you are wrong would be equivalent to admitting your beliefs are wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, its because you, like most theists, are unable to explain what purpose punishment after death serves. But it is central to your religion so you are forced to make stuff up to try to justify it. Your story then gets so convoluted that it contradicts itself and you have no way out as admitting that you you are wrong would be equivalent to admitting your beliefs are wrong.

Why don't you just admit you are wrong and then we can be done with it? 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why don't you just admit you are wrong and then we can be done with it? 😏

Because he is not wrong. Your arguments are incoherent, inconsistent, illogical and fallacious.

Why don't you just admit you are wrong and then we can be done with it?

--- Penguin.