Hell is theologically impossible if God is omnipotent.

[kx000]

So God will not do the moral thing because Satan likes things the way they are. God pampers Satan then. Ok.
Thanks for your reply. You know nothing of justice.

Regards
DL

Satan being in charge is more than enough punishment for the population of Hell.

[Greatest I am]

Satan being in charge is more than enough punishment for the population of Hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity in heaven watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.
Only a sick mind would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.
If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.

You should think of hell just a bit and recognize that God would not create such an immoral construct. Lose your barbaric tribal mentality. We are in 2012, not 112.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FKn...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpJ8...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaL7C...eature=related

Regards
DL

[kx000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity in heaven watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.
Only a sick mind would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone.

Then watch Satan you sick fuck. Those people rape and murder. Satan lets them go free in society having the power to stop them as an attack against love so he may get what he wants.

So we give him what he wants; for all eternity. He wins, rapist lose. Better than scorching Satan's people once and for all, Satan may scorch them forever and ever. Good punishment.

[SciWriter]

Damn God! He should have continued taking Prozac.

[Syne]

Thanks for the opportunity for me to show why I use a literal bible against foolish literalists.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

This completely evades answering why YOU make literalist arguments. If it is only an appeal to ridicule the it is a fallacious argument.

[kx000]

Abide by the natural order of things. Just let me be in charge, from there I'll dub all the most able people, and sort good from evil. I'll take the good people, and the rest go away.

[Greatest I am]

This completely evades answering why YOU make literalist arguments. If it is only an appeal to ridicule the it is a fallacious argument.

If I am to argue with them, I have to try using their own word against them for the best impact.

Regards
DL

[Syne]

If I am to argue with them, I have to try using their own word against them for the best impact.

As it has been pointed out to you before, where exactly on SciForums do you expect to find these sorts of people? Your arguments are simply clumsy, ineffective, and unengaging.

[Greatest I am]

And you bore me.

Regards
DL

[NMSquirrel]

For our free will to believe in God is not an issue because all he would have to do is show himself.
If in our face, no one could deny his reality. Not even the atheists.
It is the fact that he is absentee that causes doubt.

that is my argument, for if it was absolute, we would not have a choice but to believe in his existence...we would not have free will (or at least we would delude ourselves into thinking we did not have free will..eg..God exists therefore we HAVE to do what he says..)

As to Jesus saving people. All he had to do was not condemn us in the firtst place for being exactly what he created.

i still argue he is not condemning us..are you condemning your kids when you tell them not to do something or they will get hurt?
he is warning us of the consequences..
and if they do it and they get hurt is it your fault, or IOW did you hurt them or did they hurt themselves?

did you blame your parents for you getting hurt when they told you you would if you did that particular thing?

[Greatest I am]

that is my argument, for if it was absolute, we would not have a choice but to believe in his existence...we would not have free will (or at least we would delude ourselves into thinking we did not have free will..eg..God exists therefore we HAVE to do what he says..)

My reply.
Even if he existed, that does not mean we would choose to enslave ourselves to him. If he wants to lead, then like all leaders, he would have to earn that right.

------------------------

i still argue he is not condemning us..are you condemning your kids when you tell them not to do something or they will get hurt?
he is warning us of the consequences..

My reply.
If we are to take A & E as God's example of full disclosure of the consequences and benefits of his standards, then he is a poor conveyor of information as he arbitrary just tacked on a bunch of unknown consequences and benefits. In fact the snake gave more information than God did. I call that a lie of omission.

---------------------

and if they do it and they get hurt is it your fault, or IOW did you hurt them or did they hurt themselves?

My reply.
Let us not forget that God left a loaded gun where they could access it. That is negligence.
If I was negligent with my children then yes, I deserve blame.

----------------------------

did you blame your parents for you getting hurt when they told you you would if you did that particular thing?

See above.

Regards
DL

[RoccoR]

et al,

OK, I'm lost here.

How has the topic question evolved?

v/r
R

[GASHOLE]

Logic =/= Christianity

[NMSquirrel]

et al,

OK, I'm lost here.

How has the topic question evolved?

v/r
R

any topic that involves God usually devolves into arguments of existence and responsibility..

[NMSquirrel]

My reply.
Even if he existed, that does not mean we would choose to enslave ourselves to him. If he wants to lead, then like all leaders, he would have to earn that right.

right..hence my statement about us deluding ourselves..look at how many ppl argue a literal bible..

My reply.
If we are to take A & E as God's example of full disclosure of the consequences and benefits of his standards, then he is a poor conveyor of information as he arbitrary just tacked on a bunch of unknown consequences and benefits. In fact the snake gave more information than God did. I call that a lie of omission.

the very young feel the same way..just because the parents cannot explain all the why's about why a child should not do a particular thing does not lessen the danger..and even if they could explain, some children would just argue with it anyway..

My reply.
Let us not forget that God left a loaded gun where they could access it. That is negligence.
If I was negligent with my children then yes, I deserve blame.

so you are arguing that God should take away any opportunity for us to learn from our own mistakes?
would you lock up everything in your house that would pose a risk to your children or would you teach them to be responsible for their own actions?

no matter how much you would try to keep harm away from your children, they would find ways to harm themselves..we are stupid like that as a species..

[gmilam]

we are stupid like that as a species..

Apparently that fruit from the tree of knowledge wasn't all that effective...

[Greatest I am]

right..hence my statement about us deluding ourselves..look at how many ppl argue a literal bible..


the very young feel the same way..just because the parents cannot explain all the why's about why a child should not do a particular thing does not lessen the danger..and even if they could explain, some children would just argue with it anyway..



so you are arguing that God should take away any opportunity for us to learn from our own mistakes?
would you lock up everything in your house that would pose a risk to your children or would you teach them to be responsible for their own actions?

no matter how much you would try to keep harm away from your children, they would find ways to harm themselves..we are stupid like that as a species..

There is a difference between responsible action and negligence. God shows negligence.

Regards
DL

[NMSquirrel]

There is a difference between responsible action and negligence. God shows negligence.

Regards
DL

that is a different can of worms..

Quote from Gmilam
Apparently that fruit from the tree of knowledge wasn't all that effective...

that fruit only lets us know good and evil...good can still hurt..

[Greatest I am]

that is a different can of worms..


that fruit only lets us know good and evil...good can still hurt..

Show an example please.

Regards
DL

[NMSquirrel]

Show an example please.

Regards
DL

an example of what? that good can hurt? have you ever been spanked?