Subject:
|
Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 19:52:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1156 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > > Assuming he created life, he makes the rules.
> >
> > Why? Seriously.
>
> Because it's His show. It's His ball and bat. It's His earth and He made
> you. He gave you your life and in the end He will ask for it back.
It sounds like a sucky deal to me.
> > Is the creation of an individual human life a reasonable analogy? Do you
> > advocate parents having the same rights over their children that you are
> > accepting of your God having over us?
>
> Yes, if they are as Holy and loving as He.
I see. So the right to drop your kids in vats of acid only comes with lots of
love. (One might say so much love that we can't really experience it, right?)
> > I think that creating life entails responsibility to that life. If we create
> > virtual people, it won't be 'good' to run virtual hell just for our • amusement.
>
> But it's not for His amusement. It was created for Satan and his
> (Satan's)angels. This is a misconception, any conclusions based on it are
> not sound.
But wasn't Satan created for his amusement too?
> > And with all His powers, the only options he bothered to create for us is
> > heaven and hell for after we pass on? So your God is a "its my way or the
> > highway kind of god."
>
> Not at all. The key is this: in the beginning he created a garden, put man
> in it and loved him. Man sinned.
Sure. He sinned. But it really is hard to fault him. So it's like putting a
hungry dog in a yard and tossing a sack of burgers in the yard and yelling at
him for a while so that he knows he's not supposed to eat the bag, and then
after you leave and he eats the bag, you petulently beat the dog.
> Besides, what other options would you expect? What would be the point?
Oh, maybe some fairness.
> > > God hates sin because it separates Him from the ones He loves period.
> >
> > But he could have made it such that sin didn't separate us from him. • Likewise
> > he could have built a universe where we had some evidence of His grace so • that
> > basically everyone would want to walk in his bitchen garden.
>
> But He did make a way so your objection is moot.
He did make a way of what?
> Why didn't He make one *you* like?
> How would it be possible to make a way for all the different
> opinions in the world. Besides, that wouldn't be just.
Why not? How would I know how to implement His powers to make the world
better? What I know is that only a sick and twisted god would condem people to
eternal torment simply because they had never been exposed to the Bible.
> > Not me. I don't accept that remedy, and yet I don't spurn His affections. I
> > simply have no evidence that such affections exist.
>
> You do so in the act of not accepting His remedy. You are in effect saying,
> "I don't need Your help, I can do it myself."
>
> And you do have evidence of such affections: in every breath you breathe.
Am I blind? I don't experience the eveidence that you say is there. And if I
am blind, is it reasonable to punish me for it?
> The Bible says that every good gift comes from the Father of Lights. Every
> good thing in your life is because of Him (Biblically speaking).
Good meaning what? Stuff I like, or only holy stuff?
> > How could I accept a remedy that I can't see, hear, feel, or believe?
>
> I admit that you can't "see" it. But you can certainly hear, feel and
> believe it. I did. (Obviously subjective, not persuasive.)
You say that I can. Is this some tight little semantic point? Maybe I can,
but I just don't? How do you explain why I have no recolection of having
sensed any evidence of the supernatural ever?
> > > Remember, the assumption is that if He made the game, He makes the rules.
> You have not demonstrated that the rules are dumb. You have demonstrated
> that you do not understand the rules (as given in the Bible.)
So that's what I'm being punished for? Being too stupid to understand the
rules..?
> > > The one who is condemned is so by his own hand, God made an easy
> > > way out but it was rejected.
> > I have a bad time suspending my disbelief. It is just so with your God.
> > Maybe it was easy for you, but not for me.
>
> That's fine. It's better to honest about such things. It ain't over til the
> fat lady sings.
I'm not sure what kind of answer that is. I'm saying that He didn't provide an
easy way out.
> > I see. So you don't see anything wrong with dropping your children into vats
> > of acid if they hate you?
>
> Not equivalent. It would be like my children on sinking ship - if I call out
> to them and say, "The ship is sinking, come into my life raft." But they
> reject my offer and say, "We don't need you, we'll be OK without you," and
> then perish.
I think it's more like putting your kids on a cruise ship and putting a bomb in
that will cause it to go down. So it's a foregone conclusion that the boat is
going to sink. And the combination to the lock that lets the life-rafts free
is only scrawled on one bathroom wall with vague and contradictory
instructions on how to use the boat machinery that makes basically no sense.
So a few people will see it and think that they've figured it out and maybe
spread the word. But since the instructions are nonsensical (whether or not
they are correct) lots of people ignore them. Further, not everyone on the
boat ever gets word, so they didn't even have the chance to learn of salvation.
> > _I am not anyone's property_. I
> > see that I've broken from agreeing with your premises for this discussion, • but
> > I just couldn't swallow that. Your God doesn't have a right to own me.
>
> Why doesn't He.
Becaue I reject it.
> You wouldn't exist without Him.
I don't own my son. I don't have the right to reclaim his life.
> The body you have came from
> Him. Doesn't that deserve something? Not even a little gratitude?
If I had reason to believe that this was correct, I might very well feel
gratitude. I would still chafe under His stupid rules.
> it's His show, His Earth, His air, etc.
And if we don't like his arbitrary rules, he'll pack up his toys and go home.
> On what premise? My two children are mine, but I wouldn't say I "own" them.
If you have the right to destroy something, then you own it (or are acting as
an agent of the owner).
> > > Besides, this is a criticism that we Christians always endure. That we
> > > preach, "Repent or burn!" That's a distortion of the Gospel not found in the
> > > NT.
> >
> > OK, so what happens to me if I opt not to repent?
>
> You reap what you sow.
But what is it that I will reap?
> > > I didn't believe solely to avoid a negative. I accepted a positive. Big
> > > difference. The NT Gospel is "Repent and receive!"
> >
> > If I don't receive, then what happens?
>
> The point was that when you repent you receive the good news. It's not
> repent and avoid the bad news.
OK, if you won't answer my questions about what the bad news is, will you tell
me with the absense of good news is?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
