To call it my judgement gives a wrong impression. It is God's judgement. And I believe that God has the authority to make that judgement.
That's just another way of saying that you judge all of God's judgments to be correct. You judge him to have the authority to make those judgments. That is your own decision, your own proclamation. All I am asking you to do is to own it.
No. I disagree with you. There is a difference between making a judgement and accepting that God has the authority to make a judgement. I do not judge God or his actions, or his judgements. That's what you, and most atheists I know, do. (hypothetically, of course). That isn't to say that I question
them. Of course I do. I hate seeing suffering as much as you or anyone else. I hate the idea that not everybody will choose to worship God, and that God will withdraw from those people for eternity. And probably biggest of all: I am damned
if I know why God created the world at all, knowing what would result.
But: For whatever, impossible to describe to you reason, I have become more and more convinced that God did create the world, that the bible is God's word, and that God created the world for good reasons that will one day be made clear to me. The suffering will make sense to me, God's judgement will make sense to me. I know you think it strange that I would have faith in something I don't fully understand, but the things I am certain about are enough to convince me that my knowledge gaps are no reason to not worship God or to ask for His mercy.
You may think my judgement/belief distinction is semantics or some weak attempt to worm my way out of something uncomfortable, but as far as I'm concerned it's a legitimate and important distinction. After all, do I have a history on this forum of sugarcoating what I beleive? I hardly think so.
In fact, I often feel that what I say on certain topics gets re-worded and I am told that I actually believe something, or am saying something, that I am not. A lot of the time I don't have the energy to argue the point further.
If your god judging a child, who never heard of Jesus in life. to deserve a worse form of eternal torture than we could ever imagine, does not make you reconsider the position that "God's moral judgments are always correct" then what you've done, right then and there, is to judge the torture to be morally right. You could either judge it to be wrong (and in the process judge your god to be wrong). Or you could judge that it's not so wrong for it to negate your belief about your god's moral authority. Given what that moral authority says, option #2 means you judge it to be morally right. It's still your call. Why all the hoops to avoid responsibility for your own morality?
This is relevant to the distinction I made above. For a start, I do not pretend to know the eternal resting place of those who die very young. I don't know how the passage in Romans fits in with those situations. I tend to think, and certainly hope, that those who genuinely never had an opportunity to know God and reject Him will not be judged in the way those who did know and rejected God will be. The important point is, I am willing to accept that God has ultimate authority and I am comforted by the fact that God sent Jesus to live on earth and die for sin. To me, that shows God wants to save souls, not condemn then. Well might you ask, why can't He just save all souls? And I again ask, would that be justice? Do we all deserve to live with God? Where is the line drawn? Unlike us, God cannot overlook sin. It is just who God is.
So you believe that the 4-year-old aboriginal girl who lived in what we now call Australia in 400 AD has deliberately chosen what she knows is an eternity of torture. What a fool. No wonder she deserves your hatred.
Here you go again, telling me what I believe and how I feel hatred. No, I do not believe that. I simply do not know how God deals with those who genuinely did not know Him.
Yes, ignoring her certainly would be an act of hatred. And you are looking at the idea of 'torture' and 'hell' wrongly.
I was only demonstrating that genuinely feeling that someone deserves torture, especially eternal torture, requires that you hate them. The two are practically synonyms.
Does telling someone that if they reject God He will honour that decision equate in any way to hatred? The consequences are what they are - I didn't create them or wish them upon anybody. I personally don't wish anybody to experience separation from God, as tempting as that may be in some cases. How do you go on that score, by the way? Hypothetically, would you hope that certain horrible people are sent to hell?
I've been focusing on your own hateful morality, and your refusal to take responsibility for it.
Repeatedly stating something doesn't make it true. I don't hate.
A god can certainly hate people. That's its right. It's your right, too. Agreeing with your god's hatred of people is your own prerogative. I'm only asking that you be honest about that hatred.
Telling me that if I disagree with your view of things I'm not being honest. Arrogant.
I don't get how adopting more hatred would make you more divinely moral. I guess that's just my feeble human empathy speaking, though. Too bad we humans didn't gain moral knowledge or anything in the Bible's stories, right?
The only hatred on display is the hatred you must have for the horse you've flogged to death in trying to convince me I feel hatred or have to feel hatred to accept that God exists and has authority over us.
I mean that as humans we like to be the ones to decide what is right and wrong, we like to point the finger at others.
In the video, my pastor makes the very interesting observation that in prison, if you ask a muderer what it's like, the response can be something like "it's awful. There are terrible people in here. There are pedophiles in here."
We should be amoral, then.