Hell

Originally posted by whodey
Well suffering comes from sinners who choose to sin who must have the choice to sin.

So every time I get sick I must remember that it is the result of someone somewhere choosing to sin and that unless I suffer the agony of sickness then I have no free will.

Do you honestly believe that nonsense or do you just make it up to avoid having to admit that you haven't got a clue why people suffer?

Originally posted by mdhall
What about just one Big-O? =)

In any case, I find that karma, like sin, are unnecessary concepts.
It is folly to condition ourselves to do what is "right" because of magical/mythical consequences be it either hell, heaven, or karma.

It's hard enough to know who each of us truly is at the end of the day.
Why complicate it by trying to be someone else?

You obviously don't understand Karma. You don't do what's right because of Karma, but whatever acts you do have consequences. How does that equate to "trying to be someone else"?

EDIT: From my prior cite:

According to this natural law, acts bear their own rewards and punishments to the individual doer whether human justice finds out or not.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You obviously don't understand Karma. You don't do what's right because of Karma, but whatever acts you do have consequences.

Please explain it to me No1.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Huh??? The things you say are truly unbelievable sometimes. Actually think about this post and you'll realize what utter rubbish it is according to your theology.

In other words, if the God of the Bible appeals to you and you love his ways then you will follow him. However, if you do not love his ways and do not wish to follow him then all one has to say is that he does not really exist. There is then no coercion for thinking that you will pay a penalty for snubbing the Almighty if all that is needed is to believe that he does not exist.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If God loved us, why would it enrage him that Man was going on his own? This God "loves" us like OJ "loved" Nicole.[/b]

It outrages God the way it might outrage a parent who sees their child begin taking drugs or beginning a life of crime. Ultimatly that parent knows where the path leads that they are on and the consequences thereof.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]So every time I get sick I must remember that it is the result of someone somewhere choosing to sin and that unless I suffer the agony of sickness then I have no free will.

What? The only part you got right was that because mankind has fallen he will at some time experience sickness/death.

Originally posted by whodey
It outrages God the way it might outrage a parent who sees their child begin taking drugs or beginning a life of crime. Ultimatly that parent knows where the path leads that they are on and the consequences thereof.

Whodey,

I don't think a *being* that is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal can experience emotions like rage.

Can we discuss that angle rationally without referencing scripture?
Just your thoughts to mine?

Can you explain to me a time in your life when you felt outraged and what the outcome was?

Originally posted by mdhall
Whodey,

I don't think a *being* that is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal can experience emotions like rage.

Can we discuss that angle rationally without referencing scripture?
Just your thoughts to mine?

Can you explain to me a time in your life when you felt outraged and what the outcome was?

Well to talk about this one would have to leave out scripture because scripture plainly states that God at times becomes angry.

I think what you are saying is that to be onmiscient and omnipotent one would then forfiet emotions in general. After all, you know everything and have control of everything so why are you angry over what you allow or already know. Am I correct in this interpretation of yours?

As far as my outrage, this comes in many different forms depending on how well I can relate to certain percieved injustices.

Originally posted by whodey
But there are different forms of punishment ar'nt there? For example, a parent who loves their child punishes out of love. Conversly, a parent who does not love thier child usually punishes purely out of anger/frustration. Punishment does not require love in the mix, however, it can.

The parent who loves their child punishes out of love and because she thinks it's the best way she has of molding her child's behavior. For example, if a child attacks another with a sharp stick, then a spanking might be in order. Why? Because the parent wants to keep the kid from attacking people with sharp sticks!

God is not limited like that supposedly. He shouldn't have to hurt people to control them.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The parent who loves their child punishes out of love and because she thinks it's the best way she has of molding her child's behavior. For example, if a child attacks another with a sharp stick, then a spanking might be in order. Why? Because the parent wants to keep the kid from attacking people with sharp sticks!

God is not limited like that supposedly. He shouldn't have to hurt people to control them.

Hurting someone and allowing someone to hurt themselves are two different issues. God allowed Adam and Eve to allow hurt and suffering into the world through their willful sin rather than actively trying to hurt them by making them sin. God warned them of the pain and suffering and death caused by sin but it went unheeded. He did not force them to do "the right thing".

Originally posted by whodey
It outrages God the way it might outrage a parent who sees their child begin taking drugs or beginning a life of crime. Ultimatly that parent knows where the path leads that they are on and the consequences thereof.

The "path" that sin leads to is 100% up to God in your theology. If he chose to ignore Adam and Eve's disobedience to his directives, then their sin would have had no negative consequences at all. So it is not at all comparable to your examples.

Originally posted by whodey
Hurting someone and allowing someone to hurt themselves are two different issues. God allowed Adam and Eve to allow hurt and suffering into the world through their willful sin rather than actively trying to hurt them by making them sin. God warned them of the pain and suffering and death caused by sin but it went unheeded. He did not force them to do "the right thing".

Again this makes no sense whatsoever.

How much sin will there be in Heaven? None. Why? Everybody who will be in Heaven will have sinned; in fact, they will have sinned even though they believed in Jesus as Lord and Savior. What will stop them from sinning? God will change the rules and not allow them to.

EDIT: And OT Monster God directly ordered the "hurting" of people including the murder of children.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The "path" that sin leads to is 100% up to God in your theology. If he chose to ignore Adam and Eve's disobedience to his directives, then their sin would have had no negative consequences at all. So it is not at all comparable to your examples.

So if sin brings death then God should have just turned a blind eye to their sin and let them die off on their own without any type of intervention? Is this a loving thing to do? Or should God have prevented them from sinning in the first place by having direct control over them to prevent them from sinning? If so, how is direct control over their free will an act of love?

1. God is love
2. Therefore, God's will promotes life/love in our lives because he loves us.
3. Anything contrary to his will is what is considered to be sin. Sin is anything that would run counter to promoting love/life in our lives.

Originally posted by whodey
So if sin brings death then God should have just turned a blind eye to their sin and let them die off on their own without any type of intervention? Is this a loving thing to do? Or should God have prevented them from sinning in the first place by having direct control over them to prevent them from sinning? If so, how is direct control over their free wil sidered to be sin. Sin is anything that would run counter to promoting love/life in our lives.

Sin i.e. disobedience to what God wants - brings death according to your theology because God decided it would. No more, no less. You're repeating illogical nonsense again.

Originally posted by whodey
So if sin brings death then God should have just turned a blind eye to their sin and let them die off on their own without any type of intervention? Is this a loving thing to do? Or should God have prevented them from sinning in the first place by having direct control over them to prevent them from sinning? If so, how is direct control over their free will an act of love?

I still cant see how not putting the tree in the Garden of eden is a violation of Adam and Eves free will. Even putting a fence round it would hardly be a violation of their free will. Free will does not give one the ability to do absolutely anything, and removal of some privileges does not equal 'direct control over free will'.

I personally can't see how preventing someone from sinning and hence saving them from suffering (possibly eternally), could be described as anything other than loving. I don't see how anyone with the ability to do so could be described as loving if they abstain from doing so.