Logicboy03:




This is case of confirmation bias.You people force reality/facts to meet your God. Your arguments about freewill can only make sense when there is no God involved-

No God = Man is responsible for his actions and should do the best he can while alive.
Omnipotent God = No Freewill, all is foreseen and predestined by God. Choice is an illusion
God is the Creator of everything = God created evil, diseases and suffering

Lol. Tired old arguments where your asss has been handed to you on a plate often enough.

Ihedinobi:

Perfect! Very true about that end. I think that what our friends want is the freedom to do whatever they please and have no consequences to face.

So, in short, the atheists want to ra.pe pillage and murder without consequences abi?

Secular humanism has no princples on responsibility of human actions?

mtchew.

Uyi Iredia:


Hold on a minute ! I have not said I'm an atheist. I'm in a questioning state while nominally remaining a Christian. That said I think the book 'Common Sense' by Jean Meslier did the trick. His short simple points made me reconsider my beliefs.

@uyi please did you have the softcopy to share?

Ihedinobi:

Now the above makes perfect sense, doesn't it? So you comprehend all the workings of the electronics that allow you to type up your posts, do you? And everytime you click submit, you actually understand how those things you've typed appear on my screen, do you?

And what does this have to do with what I said.

Ihedinobi: Am I. I don't have to!

Yes, Yes ! This isn't surprising since, after all, you said God has no obligation to answer me.

Ihedinobi: Um, He wasn't? The Bible's wrong then? So we shouldn't refer to it as authority in our discussion, should we? Because if indeed the Bible's evidence is admissible, my argument holds firm.

Then show where in the Bible the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

---

Ihedinobi: Maybe it's my eyes, but I can't see the rest of your response. Or didn't you answer the rest of my post?

I have replied.

Uyi Iredia:

Of course you would say that. You don't agree with it.

My friend, if you want to make an investigation, you don't start with a firm conclusion. Perhaps a hypothesis that says, given this and that, I expect this. That allows you to re-examine and, if necessary, alter your hypothesis when you don't see the results you expect upon testing. It's really that simple, you know.

Why else ? Because Christians suppose Christ sinless.

Er, so you suppose all babies sinless because the Christ was sinless too.

Here's a definition of forgiveness: to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve. And I see no reason why I should ask it for indeed it is not usual to place conditions for forgiveness. And it is rare, if it at all exists, for someone to forgive only after blood has been shed - as God did. I think you're jumping the question since you have no answer to it.

Think what you will, my friend. Nobody'll shoot you for it.

To forgive a debt or an offence then, said debt or offence is treated as though they don't exist, that they never happened, would you agree?

From the sense of right and wrong I have as a human. Not some code.

Splendid, you already sound like a seasoned atheist Well, what is the source of this sense? How does it know what is right and wrong? How does it define right and why does it define it like that? How does it define wrong and why does it define it like that?

Same reason as above. And I would add here that a God of love wouldn't permit evil.

Ok. Am I right then to say that you know what a God of love would and would not do because you are one or because if you created one, He'd be like that?

If I'm wrong. Show me how. So far you're failing at it.

My friend, that was only my first response to the issue, why so antsy? You're the one who insisted I answer you, if you already have an answer you expect me to give, just post it and ask me to sign off on it. Perhaps I will.

beejaay:
@uyi please did you have the softcopy to share?

There is a direct link to the book on this thread. You can also find a free copy on the project gutenberg website.

Ihedinobi:

Lol. You know that your questions and arguments are premised on the notion that you know better than an all-knowing God, right? Well, do you want to take this opportunity to show us how you do. That you have no conception of the good that can come out of the troubles and evils people face does not mean that there is no good that can come out of them any more than an ignorance on your part of the fact that the Chinese have amazing proverbs does not mean that they don't.

And god appeared to you and told you he is all knowing when?. . .Or are you going to start quoting verse from the story book called the bible whose authors are mostly unknown and created their own concept of god that remains imaginary?. . .

Lol. People 'leave' Christianity because they were never in it in the first place, my friend. And where is all this insensible stuff you keep referring to? Uh, and where are these Christians who are seeing through this nonsense that you haven't described yet?

Edited.

Sure, just like people leave islam and hinduism because they were never muslims and hindus in the fistt place right?. . .

Logicboy03:


So, in short, the atheists want to ra.pe pillage and murder without consequences abi?

Secular humanism has no princples on responsibility of human actions?

mtchew.

Actually it's more involved than that. If you could kill someone without him dying but somehow still have him out of your way, or he dies and you don't feel guilty about it, you would do it, my friend. Consequence is more than going to jail for murder, my friend. Everything you do, good or evil, does something to your nature and you have to live with it from the moment it's done. There's no bigger consequence than having your evil or good present with you forever.

Uyi Iredia:

And what does this have to do with what I said.

Ah, but it does. If you can't believe anything before you comprehend it, you shouldn't be exercising faith in principles you haven't comprehended.

Yes, Yes ! This isn't surprising since, after all, you said God has no obligation to answer me.

Of course, He doesn't. Doesn't mean He doesn't want to. Nor does my not having to mean that I don't want to. It just means you can't force either of us to. Get used to the idea.

Then show where in the Bible the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

Where? Revelation 13:8.

---

I have replied.

Alright. Seen it.

mazaje:

And god appeared to you and told you he is all knowing when?. . .Or are you going to start quoting verse from the story book called the bible whose authors are mostly unknown and created their own concept of god that remains imaginary?. . .

Lol. Do I normally quote Scriptures to people like you? I'd rather you tell me when god appeared to you and told you he's not all-knowing. As long as knowledge is finite, then it is possible to know everything, borrowing Anony's argument. Thus omniscience is possible. You wanna counter that?

Sure, just like people leave islam and hinduism because they were never muslims and hindus in the fistt place right?. . .

I have never heard it said that any of their holy books holds that it is impossible to leave their faith. Christianity's does.

beejaay:
@uyi please did you have the softcopy to share?

Here it is: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17607/17607-h/17607-h.htm

Ihedinobi:

Lol. Do I normally quote Scriptures to people like you? I'd rather you tell me when god appeared to you and told you he's not all-knowing. As long as knowledge is finite, then it is possible to know everything, borrowing Anony's argument. Thus omniscience is possible. You wanna counter that?

You are the one making the claim about god talking to people and telling people about him. . .No god will rely on you to make his case for him if any god exist in the first place that you are trying and failing only says that you only want people to share you imaginary beliefs. . .When did any god appear to you and tell you he is all knowing?. . .When did any god tell you personally that he knows everything?. . .

I have never heard it said that any of their holy books holds that it is impossible to leave their faith. Christianity's does.

The fact that you haven't heard doesn't mean its not there in their holy books as well. . .

Alfamann:

Did you learn that from your personal lord and saviour?

Stop asking moron1c questions. It is very unbecoming.

InesQor:

Exactly! The concept of us exerting our freewill against God's desires is quite like you being a nanny for a young, spoilt royal prince who is used to getting whatever he wants. It will take your superior wisdom to know how to handle the child's freewill without violating it. In some cases, the King has allowed you to take some actions with the spoilt child no matter what the child says (this is akin to the things that are impossible to man no matter their freewill). But in the majority of cases, the prince exerts his freewill and will do whatsoever he wants. You may even seem foolish to an observer, with the way you have to go around the spoilt prince's freewill.

This position is where God has placed us, allowing us to make our choices without restriction, whatever it is and yet knowing how to handle things to prevent excesses that can greatly damage the big picture. And, for every decision that we make, there is an end that cannot be escaped. And God knows the end of each and every such decision.

You people just make your God look like a fool.

So God is actually limited by our freewill? He is doing a balancing act and walking on eggshells in fear of violating our freewill?

All these contraptions and silly arguments just to explain away the contradiction of omniscience and freewill?


The only God that can be said to allow freewill is a deist God. A deist god doesnt bother humans at all.


Yahweh destroyed pharoah's freewill by hardening his heart

Ishilove:
Stop asking moron1c questions. It is very unbecoming.

Do you need some tender loving care? You sound frustrated. Lack of husband?

Logicboy03:


You people just make your God look like a fool.

What do you mean? That he didn't look like a fool before his followers opened their mouths and removed all doubts?

@Uyi Iredia (and whoever else is interested)

I had been wondering you can get the books from me, so I searched and happened to find public links to some of the more interesting ones in my collection. You can preferably save them so you can take your time and digest offline, or else read online.

David Baggett, "Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality"

Abstract: This book aims to reinvigorate discussions of moral arguments for God's existence. To open this debate, Baggett and Walls argue that God's love and moral goodness are perfect, without defect, necessary, and recognizable. After integrating insights from the literature of both moral apologetics and theistic ethics, they defend theistic ethics against a variety of objections and, in so doing, bolster the case for the moral argument for God's existence. It is the intention of the authors to see this aspect of natural theology resume its rightful place of prominence, by showing how a worldview predicated on the God of both classical theism and historical Christian orthodoxy has more than adequate resources to answer the Euthyphro Dilemma, speak to the problem of evil, illumine natural law, and highlight the moral significance of the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. Ultimately, the authors argue, there is principled reason to believe that morality itself provides excellent reasons to look for a transcendent source of its authority and reality, and a source that is more than an abstract principle.

[url=http://endtimedeception.org/books/When%20Skeptics%20Ask.pdf]Norman L. Geisler, Ronald M. Brooks, "When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences"[/url]

Abstract:
Does God exist?
What if he is not all-powerful?
Where did evil come from?
Are miracles mythological?
Why is Jesus better than other teachers?

When skeptics ask questions like these, believers can turn to this helpful, user-friendly guide for thoughtful answers and clear explanations. In When Skeptics Ask, apologetics experts Geisler and Brooks explain how to defend the faith, using the authority and inspiration of Scripture. Readers will discover answers for objections to classic Christianity and learn to identify and respond to the misuse of Scripture by nonbelievers.

"Geisler is one of the foremost defenders of the Christian faith today."--Josh McDowell

"Geisler has been a model of apologetical activism to a generation of evangelicals. When Skeptics Ask is no exception to this rule."--J. P. Moreland

"This is an excellent tool for Christians who want to be able to provide sound answers to real intellectual questions about the Christian faith."--R. C. Sproul

Gerald O'Collins, "Rethinking Fundamental Theology"

Abstract:
This book identifies the distinguishing features of fundamental theology, as distinct from philosophical theology, natural theology, apologetics, and other similar disciplines. Addressing the potential for confusion about basic Christian claims and beliefs, Gerald O'Collins sets out to relaunch fundamental theology as a discipline by presenting a coherent vision of basic theological questions and positions that lay the ground for work in specific areas of systematic theology.

Rethinking Fundamental Theology examines central theological questions: about God, human experience and, specifically, religious experience; the divine revelation coming through the history of Israel and through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; human faith that responds to revelation; the nature of tradition that transmits the record and reality of revelation; the structure of biblical inspiration and truth, as well as basic issues concerned with the formation of the canon; the founding of the Church with some leadership structures; the relationship between Christ's revelation and the faith of those who follow other religions. O'Collins concludes with some reflections on theological method.

Written with the scholarship and accessibility for which O'Collins is known and valued, this book will relaunch fundamental theology as a distinct and necessary discipline in faculties and departments of theology and religious studies around the world.

Ihedinobi:

Actually it's more involved than that. If you could kill someone without him dying but somehow still have him out of your way, or he dies and you don't feel guilty about it, you would do it, my friend. Consequence is more than going to jail for murder, my friend. Everything you do, good or evil, does something to your nature and you have to live with it from the moment it's done. There's no bigger consequence than having your evil or good present with you forever.

Why wouldnt I or you feel guilty killing someone? So you are telling me that you would kill people if they wont die but just respawn back to life again? The physical damage inflicted nko? The momentary pain?


You christians are psychopathic

Alfamann:

What do you mean? That he didn't look like a fool before his followers opened their mouths and removed all doubts?

lmao.


Inseqr and co dont know that they are pushing Uyi Iredia further back into disbelief.


They fail to realise that logic and Yahweh are not compatible...unmeasurable, timeless and spaceless are not logical qualities of anything that exist

Ihedinobi:

My friend, if you want to make an investigation, you don't start with a firm conclusion. Perhaps a hypothesis that says, given this and that, I expect this. That allows you to re-examine and, if necessary, alter your hypothesis when you don't see the results you expect upon testing. It's really that simple, you know.

And I gave reasons for my conclusion. BTW my conclusionss are tentative.

Ihedinobi:
Er, so you suppose all babies sinless because the Christ was sinless too.

You aren't serious, are you ?

Ihedinobi:
Think what you will, my friend. Nobody'll shoot you for it.

To forgive a debt or an offence then, said debt or offence is treated as though they don't exist, that they never happened, would you agree?

This doesn't answer the question of why God didn't just forgive humans rather than sacrifice Jesus. Neither does it answer for the killings committed in the OT.

Ihedinobi:
Splendid, you already sound like a seasoned atheist Well, what is the source of this sense? How does it know what is right and wrong? How does it define right and why does it define it like that? How does it define wrong and why does it define it like that?

I sound like an atheist ! Interesting ! Of course this sense comes from our God-given intellect.

Ihedinobi:
Ok. Am I right then to say that you know what a God of love would and would not do because you are one or because if you created one, He'd be like that?

No you aren't.

Ihedinobi:
My friend, that was only my first response to the issue, why so antsy? You're the one who insisted I answer you, if you already have an answer you expect me to give, just post it and ask me to sign off on it. Perhaps I will.

I am NOT antsy. I simply note you're failing at rebtting the OP.

Ihedinobi:

My friend, if you want to make an investigation, you don't start with a firm conclusion. Perhaps a hypothesis that says, given this and that, I expect this. That allows you to re-examine and, if necessary, alter your hypothesis when you don't see the results you expect upon testing. It's really that simple, you know.

And I gave reasons for my conclusion. BTW my conclusionss are tentative.

Ihedinobi:
Er, so you suppose all babies sinless because the Christ was sinless too.

You aren't serious, are you ?

Ihedinobi:
Think what you will, my friend. Nobody'll shoot you for it.

To forgive a debt or an offence then, said debt or offence is treated as though they don't exist, that they never happened, would you agree?

This doesn't answer the question of why God didn't just forgive humans rather than sacrifice Jesus. Neither does it answer for the killings committed in the OT.

Ihedinobi:
Splendid, you already sound like a seasoned atheist Well, what is the source of this sense? How does it know what is right and wrong? How does it define right and why does it define it like that? How does it define wrong and why does it define it like that?

I sound like an atheist ! Interesting ! Of course this sense comes from our God-given intellect.

Ihedinobi:
Ok. Am I right then to say that you know what a God of love would and would not do because you are one or because if you created one, He'd be like that?

No you aren't.

Ihedinobi:
My friend, that was only my first response to the issue, why so antsy? You're the one who insisted I answer you, if you already have an answer you expect me to give, just post it and ask me to sign off on it. Perhaps I will.

I am NOT antsy. I simply note you're failing at rebutting the OP.

Ihedinobi:
Ah, but it does. If you can't believe anything before you comprehend it, you shouldn't be exercising faith in principles you haven't comprehended.

And I don't.

Ihedinobi: Of course, He doesn't. Doesn't mean He doesn't want to. Nor does my not having to mean that I don't want to. It just means you can't force either of us to. Get used to the idea.

I see. If this is indeed the God I've been worshipping I must have been wasting my time. Because it makes no sense that God refuses to answer a question simply because He isn't obligated to, all the while being said to be loving.

Ihedinobi:
Where? Revelation 13:8.

Okay. You were right.

Alfamann:

Do you need some tender loving care? You sound frustrated. Lack of husband?

Quite a mannerless young man, aren't you? So many babies on NL. Smh.

mazaje:

You are the one making the claim about god talking to people and telling people about him. . .No god will rely on you to make his case for him if any god exist in the first place that you are trying and failing only says that you only want people to share you imaginary beliefs. . .When did any god appear to you and tell you he is all knowing?. . .When did any god tell you personally that he knows everything?. . .

Right. And how do you know the bolded?

The fact that you haven't heard doesn't mean its not there in their holy books as well. . .

Sure. So you wanna show me?

---

Uyi Iredia:

And I gave reasons for my conclusion. BTW my conclusionss are tentative.

They were tentative? Well, if you meant to convey that, you didn't quite succeed.

You aren't serious, are you ?

I'm not? Why wouldn't I be? Why do you suppose that babies are sinless? Is it because the Christ was? It's pretty plain what my enquiry is, I think.

This doesn't answer the question of why God didn't just forgive humans rather than sacrifice Jesus. Neither does it answer for the killings committed in the OT.

Is that your answer to my enquiry to what the act of forgiveness implies?

I sound like an atheist ! Interesting ! Of course this sense comes from our God-given intellect.

You want evidence for this too? Listen, you call the Christian God to court and charge Him with failure to love and you do not cite and validate the authority by which you arraign Him? Like, seriously? Who does that? Define this law of yours (yeah, I know it's your human sense of right and wrong) which holds the Christian God guilty of lack of adequate 'lovingness' and tell us how it is binding on Him. Can you do that?

No you aren't.

Ok, then. So, how exactly are we supposed to know that you do know what a God of love would or wouldn't do?

I am NOT antsy. I simply note you're failing at rebtting the OP.

Like I have already said, note what you will. I can only really fail when I have finished my address and it doesn't measure up to the demands of the OP. As it is, I haven't.

Ishilove:
Quite a mannerless young man, aren't you? So many babies on NL. Smh.

Which one do you desire most? Young man or babies?

Uyi Iredia:

And I don't.

Right. So how exactly does the tap of a key on your keypad/keyboard produce a character on my screen? Please be as explicit as possible.

I see. If this is indeed the God I've been worshipping I must have been wasting my time. Because it makes no sense that God refuses to answer a question simply because He isn't obligated to, all the while being said to be loving.

So who exactly says that God refuses to answer any question?

Okay. You were right.

Well, I'm right about a lot more too. It really would be nice if you kept testing out my arguments like you did this one, you know. Who knows what grief it might save us both, right?

Ihedinobi:
Right. So how exactly does the tap of a key on your keypad/keyboard produce a character on my screen? Please be as explicit as possible.

First an electronic signal is generated which is translated by the processor of my phone and sent as a packet through cellular bases to a transmission station where it connects to a proxy server, the packet is then sent to one of the systens which Nairaland runs on and is reflected on the thread. I think that's enough detail.

Ihedinobi:
So who exactly says that God refuses to answer any question?

Implied since you repeatedly assert God idn't obligated to answer my questions. If he isn't refusing, where is the answer ?

Ihedinobi:
Well, I'm right about a lot more too. It really would be nice if you kept testing out my arguments like you did this one, you know. Who knows what grief it might save us both, right?

No. You were only right about that ... And wrong about other things.

@ihedinobi
It's a great irony that modern science has given you, among many other discoveries and inventions, the computer and the internet; just so that you could leave your chosen brand of "fabricated assumptions"! LOL

Uyi Iredia:

First an electronic signal is generated which is translated by the processor of my phone and sent as a packet through cellular bases to a transmission station where it connects to a proxy server, the packet is then sent to one of the systens which Nairaland runs on and is reflected on the thread. I think that's enough detail.

Actually it isn't, because what I wanted to hear is how key 'A' on my laptop shows 'A' and nothing but 'A' on your screen, but we can work with this. When did you learn all that?

Implied since you repeatedly assert God idn't obligated to answer my questions. If he isn't refusing, where is the answer ?

Ok, the intellect of an atheist too. How does the lack of obligation imply refusal?

Ok, so if He isn't refusing, where is the answer? Remember a few questions about your faculty of reception I asked you earlier that you didn't deem worthy of an answer? Well, a tone-deaf person cannot hear any music, you know.

No. You were only right about that ... And wrong about other things.

Sure, whatever you say. I don't believe you thought that I might be right about that one until you checked it out. In fact, you positively said that the Lamb was not slain from the foundation of the world, but that He was predestined to be slain. You thought I was wrong. I can wait for you to learn how right I am about the rest too.

Ihedinobi:
They were tentative? Well, if you meant to convey that, you didn't quite succeed.

Of course, I didn't set out to show my stance was tentative.

Ihedinobi:
I'm not? Why wouldn't I be? Why do you suppose that babies are sinless? Is it because the Christ was? It's pretty plain what my enquiry is, I think.

Who's talking about babies ? You aren't seriouss.

Ihedinobi:
Is that your answer to my enquiry to what the act of forgiveness implies?

Yes, it is. You failed to PROPERLY reply me even after I had presented a definition of forgiveness.

Ihedinobi:
You want evidence for this too? Listen, you call the Christian God to court and charge Him with failure to love and you do not cite and validate the authority by which you arraign Him? Like, seriously? Who does that? Define this law of yours (yeah, I know it's your human sense of right and wrong) which holds the Christian God guilty of lack of adequate 'lovingness' and tell us how it is binding on Him. Can you do that?

What else do I need ? Nothing ! I have a sense of right and wrong; I'm told God is loving, therefore anything that contradicts that should be questioned. Now ! Is wiping out whole villages of men, women and children loving ? Is sentencing a man and woman and all their descendants to death and suffering for eating a forbidden apple loving ? Is killing a sinless person in order to forgive a sinful people loving ?

Ihedinobi:
Ok, then. So, how exactly are we supposed to know that you do know what a God of love would or wouldn't do?

Anything that contradicts the concept of love would be what God shouldn't do.

Ihedinobi:
Like I have already said, note what you will. I can only really fail when I have finished my address and it doesn't measure up to the demands of the OP. As it is, I haven't.

Actually, you have. You have FAILED to present REASONS as to why God is loving despite what I wrote.

Ihedinobi:

Right. So how exactly does the tap of a key on your keypad/keyboard produce a character on my screen? Please be as explicit as possible.

I have never heard a more stupiid question in all my time on nairaland.

Interesting thread going here and wish I had more time to go through it thoroughly but...
but to uncle Uyi - the path you are on is fantastic. Self-discovery is exciting and everyone must come to a place where they put their beliefs to the test and figure out if it is worth holding on to or throwing away. Nothing worse than a programmed zombie either way.


In regards to the core question "Is the Christian God good/loving? especially in light of many OT events?"
^to that, I say no - at least not according to our present understanding of what good is.

This is of course problematic because we are limited by what we know. Some questions we can ask ourselves - how accurate, true, correct - is our understanding of what good/loving is/entails? does our understanding of "good/loving" change with time? generation? culture? context? circumstance? etc etc... is 'good' rigid? is it fixed? or is it relative? fluid depending on the situation?

One aspect I can speak to with confidence - when you say why couldn't God just forgive? If someone harmed my family - my husband, or children or parents - and in the court someone stood up and asked me why can't I just forgive? I will not only shoot down the criminal, I will also shoot down the person who suggested forgiveness.


All in all, I wish you well my dear. If christianity is for you, you will make your way back. If it is not for you then you will move on to other beliefs. Still, it is well with you. Godbless.

Ihedinobi:

Actually it isn't, because what I wanted to hear is how key 'A' on my laptop shows 'A' and nothing but 'A' on your screen, but we can work with this. When did you learn all that?



Ok, the intellect of an atheist too. How does the lack of obligation imply refusal?

Ok, so if He isn't refusing, where is the answer? Remember a few questions about your faculty of reception I asked you earlier that you didn't deem worthy of an answer? Well, a tone-deaf person cannot hear any music, you know.



Sure, whatever you say. I don't believe you thought that I might be right about that one until you checked it out. In fact, you positively said that the Lamb was not slain from the foundation of the world, but that He was predestined to be slain. You thought I was wrong. I can wait for you to learn how right I am about the rest too.

JESUS DID NOT DIE ON THE CROSS! Even the Daila lama knows this. They have evidence of a certain Jesus(isa) brought to India after being rescued from the cross( which was hours before the jewish Sabbath day) it takes more that 3 days for a human to die of Crucifixion. Had he died on the cross, he would remain there until after the sabbath day.

Since you do not know anything about the jewish Jesus, you can at least learn more about your own people.