re: When a lesbian comes out of the closet; not what you're thinking tho

quote:

---

You have also repeatedly made the case that there can be no objective morals without God. I believe that God exists, but that there are no objective morals, only morals we agree on as groups of people. The proof of this is changing morals through time. It was moral at one time to keep slaves (indeed, the Bible tells us as much), however, it is no longer moral to have slaves. There are no objective morals, just as there is no objective good or evil

---

A fair argument. There really is no necessity for God to be good or evil. Order for there to be absolute good or evil.

In fact the concept is really a human invention and perhaps has no bearing on God whatsoever

Or maybe we're just an experiment where by God looks to see what conclusions his little ant farm comes to

The bottom line being that it's just incredibly narcissistic for humans to think that they have some window into understanding what a being capable of creating everything in the universe might be thinking. I suppose you can assume that being is telling you the truth but there's nothing to actually support that idea other than faith that he is

quote:

---

I'm not attacking it, you're proselytizing me, and I'm simply telling you why it won't take.

---

I know why you won't take it but you don't have to be dishonest with your language.

quote:

---

It IS extortion. "If you don't worship God, you will suffer His Wrath for Eternity." That's extortion, and any submission would have to be considered under duress.

---

It's not extortion and you still don't understand what God is offering and why.

Extortion is a threat of a criminal act if the victim doesn't provide what the extortionist wants. By definition God cannot extort anyone because He is bound by His moral character (which is the basis for the moral law) and He cannot commit a criminal act in the formal use of the word.

What God does is more akin to what a king or leader might do by offering a pardon to someone guilty of some crime if they confess their guilt. In this situation, you are the guilty party who has sinned against God and already deserve the suffering that due for sin. God is the King whom you've sinned against and He is not required to pardon you for your lawlessness, yet He offers you a free pardon if you but confess your guilt and trust in what He's done through Jesus to pardon sins.

quote:

---

I don't want to worship some wrathful God. First of all, wrath is an emotion of biological beings constrained by space-time. It is not something a trans-dimensional creator of the universe would exhibit.

---

God is personal but not biological. His personhood allows humans as people to have certain shared characteristics of God, though at a lesser level. Our thinking should reflect His, but His thinking is perfect and ours is imperfect, we feel because God feels, but our feeling isn't like God's.

Our feeling is reactionary and our emotional state is changed by or dependent on some other stimuli. God doesn't feel emotion reactively because it would mean He is capable of changing, which He is not. His feelings are better described as His self-disposition towards things. His wrath towards sin isn't whimsical or irrational, nor does it denote a change in God. God has predestined all that happens so He cannot learn something new.

quote:

---

Second, I was taught Wrath was a sin. I would rather not worship a sinner.

---

Wrath alone isn't sinful. God's wrath towards sin is justified due to His perfect holiness. Ephesians 4:26 calls Christians to be angry and do not sin. That assumes there is a form of anger that is not sinful, and that anger is righteous indignation towards those things that are offensive to God.

quote:

---

No he didn't he exhibited the sin of wrath with the money changers.

---

Not sinful for God to be angry with sinners who have defiled His holy habitation.

quote:

---

Your own admission of being repentant only when you're aware of your sin, and that you are not worthy of God's Grace.

---

I'm aware of my sins generally, but we are not required to repent of every unknown sin specifically, recalling each to mind. We are to repent of every sin we know of specifically and all sins that we don't know of generally. It's an attitude of repentance that God cares about, not that you said a specific prayer in a specific way, like using a rosary or confessing each sin to a priest.

Martin Luther struggled with this very thing as he wrestled with his convictions of sin. He would bore the priests and monks that he confessed to by spending hours at a time with them, thinking he had to confess every sin in order to be given forgiveness. What changed his attitude was the realization that Christ already paid for those sins, and it's not confession that applies that forgiveness to a person, but faith.

In regards to not being deserving of God's grace: you're right that I'm not deserving of it (grace is by definition God's unmerited favor or blessing), but that's the point of God saving sinners who don't deserve it. We're all enemies of God prior to His regenerative work by His Spirit in our hearts. I'm not going to Hell because of what Christ has done for me, not because of what I've done. There's nothing I could do to merit salvation.

quote:

---

I probably understand it more than you, having had a near death experience myself. I didn't think to ask God why he had forsaken me, however.

---

This proves to me that you don't really understand it. It wasn't simply the physical suffering and death, but the spiritual, emotional, and psychological suffering that He experienced as having the full weight of God's wrath poured out on Him for something that He didn't deserve and for a people who didn't deserve the benefits of it. God turned His figurative back on His son so that sinners like you and me could be saved. That's not something any of us could empathize with.

quote:

---

Sin is sin and everyone should repent of theirs and trust in Christ's sacrifice for salvation from the penalty those sins deserve.

---

Homosexuality is a sin sure but that's an issue that is between God and the sinner and resolution of that sin or lack thereof is between them only.

That resolution does not belong in government buildings as it is not appropriate for Government to adjudicate what is biblically a sin and what's not.

quote:

---

So, the Big Guy didn't see that coming? The Christian God is about as petty and flawed as Zeus.

---

All knowing, except when he isn't.

quote:

---

Nah. Not really.

You have said that God is the only reason we even have the concept of good and evil. To which I say, "OK, that doesn't actually tell us on which end he is. If he can define good and evil from the good side, he can from the evil side too".

Sorry. You can't overcome that and you know it.

---

I've already addressed this. It isn't the mere existence of a god that allows for the knowledge of good and evil, but the existence of the biblical God. That particular God has certain attributes that are required in order for that God to be God, and His being truthful is one of those aspects, since lying would be a self-contradiction and a moral impurity. If God could like, He wouldn't be the greatest being in existence (from a moral perspective, not just from a perspective of power), and thus if He could lie, He wouldn't be God.

I went on to say that if God could lie, we would have no way to trust anything we think we know to be true. Uniformity couldn't be counted on, His own revelation couldn't be counted on, and our senses as being made in His image couldn't be counted on.

quote:

---

OK. And? How exactly does this dictate that he isn't evil.

---

We can know things. We can generally trust our senses. If we can, it means God is trustworthy, and therefore, God doesn't deceive us.

While that's a practical view of it, the real issue is whether or not God by definition has to be morally perfect as a necessary element of being necessarily perfect and therefore incapable of lying and incapable of being evil. By definition, God is the most perfect being, and if God could be evil, He would not be morally perfect and therefore would not be most perfect.

For God to be perfect, it means He would lack nothing. In the case of morality, God would lack moral goodness if He were evil, and therefore He would not be morally perfect and therefore not most perfect or perfect in all ways.

quote:

---

Maybe you can't do any of those things? Actually, there's no maybe about it. You can't. This has been documented repeatedly. Our senses are HIGHLY limited. They're so limited, that tons of shite in our world, we can't even see without technological help.

---

The issue isn't whether or not our senses can sense everything perfectly. The issue is whether our senses are generally reliable in regards to the things we have the ability to sense.

quote:

---

Certainly, an evil omnipotent being could fool little old you into thinking your senses are valid. Or, are you saying you could resist God's power?

---

God could fool my senses if He were evil. That's precisely my point. The fact that my senses are generally reliable means that He isn't fooling me. The only reason why my senses aren't perfectly reliable is because I live in a fallen world with a fallen body with disease and deterioration.

quote:

---

She’s welcome under the tent. The more republicans move to a social stance of “You do you, I’m just not paying for it” and an economic conservative stance of governing, the more people will vote republican.

---

So libertarian minded, got it.

quote:

---

He isn't "offering" anything. According to you, he's threatening.

---

Nope. There is no threat. It's simply a reality. You're already guilty of breaking the law. You just now need to be thrown in jail. Being thrown into jail isn't a threat because it's the natural result of you breaking the law. What isn't a natural result is the offer of a pardon.

quote:

---

Anyone who rationalizes that eternal damnation is DESERVED for the crime of not accepting Jesus is a fricking idiot.

---

While rejecting Jesus is a sin, that's not why anyone goes to Hell. Everyone who is damned is damned because of all the others sins they are guilty of. Everyone is going to Hell by default. It's accepting the sacrifice of Jesus that alters the course.

I also like the part where God is wandering around the Garden looking for Adam after the First Sin. Like He couldn't spot him hiding behind that bush.

And you know what Adam was thinking, "Oh shite, Ima get it nah!"

I've been there. God carrying that belt said it all.

quote:

---

God could fool my senses if He were evil. That's precisely my point. The fact that my senses are generally reliable means that He isn't fooling me.

---

did you seriously just argue that you aren't being fooled by the omnipotent being because you can't tell you're being fooled? Okay I was wrong with my prior post now you should be humiliated

quote:

---

convenient declaration without evidence

---

Do you know the difference between science and philosophy? You make silly statements like this showing that you don’t.

I’m giving a logical argument based on definitional truths. If you want to argue the definitions, have at it, but you don’t seem to want to do that. I’m essentially saying that an apple is not a pear by definition and you are asking for evidence. You don’t even understand that nature of the argument and I’m not sure you will.

Now that I’ve explained why your repeated statement is irrelevant to the discussion, I won’t be responding to that statement again unless it is rephrased as a ‘why’ question that is asking for a logical reason for a particular proposition.

quote:

---

now you're just embarrassing yourself. Seriously you should be humiliated at this point

---

Ironically, you’re the one who can’t defend himself. You aren’t providing reasons for why you are right or why I’m wrong. Even here, you claim I’m embarrassing myself without a justification as to why. In other words, you provided a declaration without evidence