How can we be stopping him? He's omnipotent. You can't stop an omnipotent being from doing anything.
We have free will and He does not stand in the way of our free will. If He did we would all be robots and that isn't what He wants. He wants us to make the choice whether or not to love Him.
I have to point out, yet again, that you cannot choose to love someone or not to love someone. Would that that were the case... life would be a thousand times easier if you could simply choose which emotions you wanted to have at any given time.
That's how all genuine relationships are formed. You have to have the desire to be in that relationship
N.B. that "loving someone" and "being in a relationship with someone" are two different things. It appears that you're equating the two, here. (Note, for example, that while you cannot choose to love or not to love someone, you can
choose whether to be in a relationship with him.)
It does not however make Him responsible for everything. Just because He knows what's going to happen doesn't make Him responsible.
Of course it does. How could it not?
He is a faultless and blameless perfect loving God. As I've said He created the best possible formula for creating the most love between Him and His creation as possible and that includes evil, death, and everything else in this world. It's important to note that he did this while also causing the least amount of suffering and pain, and yes I know all about the Holocaust and other horrible things.
Saying "worship me or I'll set you on fire for all eternity" is not a choice.
This forum is proof that it is.
Adam and Eve were simply the first ones, they created the initial separation. Every person and generation since has decided and chosen to follow in that rebellion and sin including me and you.
I don't believe that's scriptural, is it? I thought that sin was something that everyone inherited from A&E and therefore not something that anyone has a choice in.
I don't even understand what the big deal is since Jesus has died on the cross, and all you have to do to make this all moot is ask Him into your life and repent of your sins.
"And if you don't, I'll set you on fire for all eternity." That's the big deal.
Your premise is wrong. God owes us nothing. We are the creation, He is the creator.
By this logic, parents owe their children nothing, either.
Imagine the clay arguing with the potter.
If clay were sentient and could think and feel, it would have every right to do so.
You act as if the second chance requires you to cut off your arm. It's the best deal ever, He dies for your sins and you get eternal life.
And I if I don't accept the doctrine, he sets me on fire for all eternity. Yep, wonderful deal, all right.
If He was to just wipe the slate clear that would cheapen Him and the relationship He wants with each of us.
True love comes from getting to know someone
Right, which harkens back to what I said before: love isn't something you can choose to feel, it comes about naturally from getting to know someone. As pertains this matter, I don't even believe that Yahweh exists at all, so there's the first barrier to my loving him... the second barrier is that he sets people on fire, and while it's just barely possible that the first barrier could be surmounted, the second barrier never could be. I am not capable of loving someone who sets people on fire for not loving him. Quite the contrary, if I knew such a person had taken an interest in me, I would be reviewing my personal security arrangements and working with the police to ensure that this person would stay away from me.
through struggle and hard times, through working at the relationship and a relationship with Jesus is no different.
It's different because Jesus sets people on fire for not believing he exists. (Are you starting to see a pattern here?)
Secondly if Hitlers ancestors acted as he did they would be punished, the same way we're punished because we act in the same way our ancestors did.
Right, and that's my point: A&E were the ones who ate the fruit. We didn't
, and yet we're being punished for it. It's unjust.
Sorry, no. That is not evidence, that is the claim.
No that's evidence http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
No, it's the claim that requires evidence.
-The Bible doesn't emanate anything to you bc you wont let it.
False. I opened that book with all willingness to be "shown the light", and I wasn't. I know others who have done the same thing.
There's a YouTuber, for example, named BionicDance, who was raised in a nonreligious home and had never read the bible, except for the few passages that most people are familiar with. A while back, she said that since she was so vocally critical of Christianity, she thought it would be a good idea for her to read the bible, just to have a better idea of what she was being so critical of (an idea I agree with, which is one of the reasons I read the bible myself). In a video she made, she openly said that she was actually rather nervous about it, because she thought there was a good chance that reading it would actually convert her to Christianity, but she also said that if this was something she was wrong about, she definitely wanted to know about it. (It doesn't get much more open-minded than that -- I certainly know for a fact that very few Christians are willing to examine evidence that contradicts their faith.)
So she started reading it, and after she finished each book, she made a video about it. What ended up happening was not that she was converted; her reaction was somewhat similar to mine in that she was alternately bored, offended, and incredulous that anyone could possibly find the book inspiring in any way. As with me, it served only to solidify her rejection of Christianity -- in her case, she was so completely disgusted with the bible that she never even finished it, she only got up to 1 Kings, I think it was, before she made one last video about the subject saying that she wasn't going to continue with the project because it was a huge waste of her time.
-Personal testimonies are only worthless to atheists when they involve Jesus Christ. In all other arenas they're critical.
Personal testimonies are worthless when they're not backed up with evidence. This applies to Jesus and to everything else.
-There is no such thing as macro evolution.
This is just plain wrong.
- If the universe wasn't created what happened? What caused the Big Bang?
This is the fallacy known as the argument from ignorance: you cannot imagine where the universe came from, therefore you conclude that Yahweh must have made it. It doesn't work that way.
As Bill Craig says "To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.
It's not about reading the Bible it's about what kind of heart and mind you read it with.
Hey, if the bible were right, believe me, I would want to know about it. Most of the other people here would probably tell you the same thing. But I'm going to approach the bible the same way I approach any other truth claim: I'm going to examine the claim, then I'm going to examine the evidence (if any) in support of the claim to try to determine whether the claim is true. There's no reason I should treat the bible any differently.
This applies not just to any historical claims that the bible makes, but also to any ethical codes it dictates. For example, if a book says that the proper penalty for a rape is to require the rape victim to marry her rapist, I am going to speak critically of that notion regardless of which book it happens to appear in.
All research should be done with a mind and a heart and an eagerness to be proven wrong.
No. Research should be done with eagerness to determine the truth. Research should never
be done with personal desires in mind -- personal desire to be proven right or
wrong. A big part of the point of the scientific method is, in fact, to eliminate personal bias.
If you keep searching for evidence with the heart you display here you'll find it.
I already have.
I agree with that the research you did was done against your world view but did you do it in a humble, wanting to be proved wrong way? That's how true scientists do their research.
Because God refuses to show you a miracle doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
Of course it doesn't. But it certainly tends to lead me in that direction.
Remember it wouldn't be a perfect formula and their wouldn't be free will if He didn't let the skeptic have a leg to stand on. A very weak leg, but still a leg. The weakness of that leg will be embarrassing for many at the final judgement.
I believe I already gave you a link to Greta Christina's article, "Why Does God Play Hide and Seek?" Basically, the idea that Yahweh hides from us so as to give us free will is an astoundingly bad argument. Having information doesn't interfere with our ability to make wise choices. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite: lacking
information is what interferes with our ability to make wise choices, so by hiding from us, Yahweh is actually interfering with our free will, not supporting it.
Geological evidence shows that there was never a global flood. The Sinai desert was not occupied by two million people for forty years. Snakes and donkeys cannot talk. On and on and on.
I disagree and so does the good doctor. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
And you're both wrong. *shrug*
It's hard to explain, and different people probably have different reasons. For my own part, it sounds condescending, and I don't like being spoken down to. I'm an intelligent man who has spent many years thinking about and examining such matters -- I mean, jeez, I majored in philosophy, for crying out loud, so when I hear someone saying that they "hope my eyes will be opened" or something like that, it sounds to me like I'm being spoken to like a naive, inexperienced child, which I most definitely am not. It would be kind of like expecting a dentist not to know what wisdom teeth are, or something.
That seems a little defensive to me.
I suppose maybe it does, but if you had spent as much time, effort, and money as I have studying such matters only to have people tell you that you don't know anything about the topic, you'd probably respond rather defensively as well.
In order for what they're saying to be offensive you would have to know everything.
Of course I wouldn't. But their attitude appears to be that I don't know anything
, or at least that I know almost nothing, about this topic. Which is blatantly false. I know more about this topic than most believers do, in fact -- as do most of the regulars here at WWGHA.
As far as apologetics goes, the last time I head any kind of an argument for or against the existence of God that I had never heard before was about three years ago, and the last time before that would probably have been somewhere around 1993 (in college). So yes, when someone implies that I'm not well-informed about the subject, I tend to get offended, even if it isn't someone who should necessarily know better.
The reality is you don't currently know the truth
Physician, heal thyself.
and those people are actually telling you something you need to hear badly.
I don't need to hear misinformation.
You are one of the few who doesn't have convenient friends.
Not sure what you mean by this?