Why is there death and suffering in the world?

[Garrison5402]

Because people turn a blind eye to people in need.

[Botjer1]

Hahahahaha this is so crappy!

[johndebbra]

wow that is like saying all of BTK's family should be in jail for his crime,we are punished for Adam and Eve's transgression

[bogusnachos]

THe bottom line is: God could stop suffering but chooses not to. You did not answer why. It is immoral to allow a person to suffer for another's actions.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bogusnachos No, the bottom line is that want to assert your own opinions and be your own god. You are contradictory and self-refuting: 1. You allow people to suffer for you all the time--your parents suffered through raising you; soldiers, police, and firemen suffer to protect you...are all these institutions immoral? 2. How does your atheism provide for the empathic sense of morality you appeal to? How does such compassion exist in a universe where there is no God of the Bible?

[bogusnachos]

@JesusIsUrSaviour I do not allow people to suffer for me, i am not all-powerful i can't prevent suffering; If i were, I would end suffering. Which would make me more moral than god. 2. Atheism is a disbelief in god, it doesn't provide provide for an empathic sense, that comes from evolution - from people relying on each other for survival. You fail to show any self-refutation or contradiction.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bogusnachos But you DO allow people to suffer for you--you allow soldiers to give their lives to protect your freedom; firefighters run into burning buildings to save others; parents to work and toil to put food on your plate. Where is your protest to these? You could stop it--stop eating so your parents don't have to buy food; enlist so someone else does not have to die in your place. When you push your thoughts to their natural end, the inconsistency of your notion of immorality comes out.

[bogusnachos]

@JesusIsUrSaviour I cannot prevent the suffering, therefore i don't allow it. If i were all powerful, as your god is supposed to be, I would put an end to all suffering. Your argument is absurd and a pathetic attemp to put me on the defensive. You keep dodging the question you can't answer. How can an all powerful god be good and still allow suffering. The answer is he can't. It is much more likely there is no god.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bogusnachos You are willing to let someone suffer for you WHEN IT SUITS YOU, when it SERVES YOU. But if it's God who has a lot of "thou shalt not's" which you don't like, then you retreat to this supposed moral highground to escape God's judgment. It is terribly inconsistent and self-serving. What's more, this "mutual altruism" of evolution is circular and in opposition to what we observe in nature. Essentially, it reads like this: Why are there morals? Because they help us survive. cont.

[bogusnachos]

@JesusIsUrSaviour Again, you are dodging the question with your juvenile attempt to put me on the defensive. If i could wipe out cancer in children, i would. Your God can, being all powerful - you say because Adam ate fruit. What a good reason to let children suffer.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bogusnachos Then, how did we survive? Because we are moral and kind to each other. This is a tautology, a circular argument used to explain how blind, random chemical reactions produce a singular, guiding moral principle WHICH IT CAN'T, except in the imaginative fancy of the dogmatic adherents to evolutionary mantra. Further more, nature bespeaks a survival of the fittest, full of bloodshed, strife, and struggle. So much for loving your neighbor when you're neighbor is lunch.

[bogusnachos]

@JesusIsUrSaviour No tautology whatsoever. Humans survive by co-operating with each other - not out of altruism but out of self-interest. People who can see past their immediate self interest and work with others are more likely to survive and pass the genes on. This creates the basis for a society along with morals, values, beliefs etc.

[bogusnachos]

God puts a tree in front of Adam and tells him not to eat the fruit.  Did god not know Adam's curiosity eventually would get the better of him? Any idiot could see that. So God sets Adam to commit sin and when he does go punishes all of humanity for that sin. And this is supposed to be a just God? Sounds pretty sick to me.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bogusnachos This is not an argument...just your unargues philoshopical bias. You don't "like" how God operates so you cite that as evidence he does not exist. The Bible has a verse all about your kind, "even as they did not LIKE to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind" (Rom 1:28). Your preference, your emotional distaste, does not change the truth.

[bogusnachos]

@JesusIsUrSaviour Which is more likely, that the Adam and Eve story is true, or that it was written by man. The story is absurd on its face. Any moron could see that adam would eventually succumb to curiosity and eat the fruit. Why would God bother - to place blame on Adam? The God described in your book is not moral.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bogusnachos Do you have any arguments to support what is emerging as nothing more than your preference against God? Your are spouting philosophical conjecture after another based on your limited knowledge of the Bible and your own bias against God. What's more likely, that chemical reactions blindly reacting in the struggle for life mysteriously converged to not only form life--contrary to every known law of science--and then gave this life the ability to have compassion? What faith you have

[bogusnachos]

@JesusIsUrSaviour I am not promoting a worldview, you are. Please tell me where my "Philosophical Conjecture" is in error. Where did i say anything about "chemical reactions blindly reacting..." ? this is an invention of your messed up brain. Really, dude, you could use some therapy.

[nitkoffsky]

@bogusnachos I agree, dude! The Christian faith loves to blame man for the suffering, pain & death of our world. But what they fail to admit is that all the good & ALL the BAD in our world is because of what their God allows. He is the universal creator & ultimate power source . What bothers me the most about this God is that He allows Satan and his demons to tempt & torment mankind. Why in the beginning, did God create Satan & beings like him? They serve NO good purpose!

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bogusnachos Would you like God to have made you a robot? If you don't have a choice, how could you have free will? You equate God's foreknowledge with predestination. They are NOT the same. While God may have known Adam's actions, he did not CAUSE them. Yet, in knowing, God already had a sacrifice in mind thorugh the death of his son to atone for Adam's transgression--and yours and mine. That is the wonderful mercy and grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

[bogusnachos]

@JesusIsUrSaviour It seems god made YOU a robot. I did not equate foreknowledge with predestination - this is another one of you inventions (i am beginning to think you have some mental issues.) The god in your story knew his actions would lead to great human suffering and he did them anyway. Your god is immoral.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bogusnachos I am happy to discuss and debate these issues with you, but if your only argument is a fallacious barb of ad hominem attacks, I think you need check your confidence level in your own beliefs. Do you have nothing better to defend your worldview with than juvenile name calling?

[bogusnachos]

@JesusIsUrSaviour You are the one promoting a worldview, I am simply challenging it. Your claim that suffering of man is the result of Adam eating a fruit is absurd.  You have not answered any of my questions, you simply attack your imagined worldview of atheists (which you obviously don't understand). Don't be such a cry-baby, dude.

[nitkoffsky]

@JesusIsUrSaviour All the creations of your God are robots. They all have LIMITED WILL according to there DNA. A bird can fly-you cannot. Your God designed & programmed each 1 of his beloved creations. So then, God being omnipotent could have programmed the human race WITHOUT the ability to hate, lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, etc. We would still have LIMITED "free will" to make better choices with better consequences because we have been created this way by a LOVING God.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@FujiwaraNoGo Just so you know, I emailed Ms.  Harris with a link to this video and the background that a fellow atheist suggest I discuss the matter with her. I wonder, though, if I suggested a link or person for you to investigate with a Christian answer to the question, would you be as willing to do reciprocate the gesture? Happy New Year.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@FujiwaraNoGo In any case, I would welcome any discussion with Mr. Harris.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@FujiwaraNoGo I mean this: If there is no God, why does the question of evil in the world bother you? What is evil? What is suffering in a world where there is no God? Why would you feel this "burning question" regarding justics and equity if there were no Judge of Truth in whose image you were made? What you--like many other atheists--do is exploit a biblical presupposition in order to try and disprove the God of the Bible. This is ultimatlely self-refuting.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@FujiwaraNoGo No, they wouldn't because they are God's arguments. See, you--like Harris--begin with the presupposition that there is no God. This assumption presents conflicts between free will and God's power, the existence of sin and evil, etc. But if one has the presupposition that God exists and reconciled the world through Christ, these "strongholds" of atheism-so called crumble. The real question is, which worldview justifies the discussion of your question: atheism or Christianity?

[kiman2]

This has been a burning question for me. And everywhere I look (google), the answers are all the same - b/c of sin. I do understand the implications of Adam's sin and how we live in a fallen world; thus there is suffering. And many point out that without suffering, we wouldn't live in a world of free choice. Yes, Adam did have the choice to eat the fruit; however if he ate it, he would anger God and death awaits. Can you then really call that a choice? Please explain. Thank you.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@kiman2 An honest and profound question. A question of clarification: why does consequence negate free will? You seem to suggest that because there is a consequence, there is no free will. I know the consequences of doing drugs. I can teach my kids not to do drugs, but they are free to choose this course against my will and desire for them. If they choose this path. they face the consequences. Has my foreknowledge canceled their free will?

[DrMonkeyForAFoot]

3:48 "The truth is - God made things perfect and sinless. And man by his sin destroyed that"

If God made all things sinless and God made man. How is it then that man could sin?

4:25 "Believe on the lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."?

What of the Polynesians who lived for more than 10'000 years without the knowledge of the Judeo-Christian god?

Atheists do not blame God for suffering, but point out that if someone were to believe in a god, that god can not be "good and loving".

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@DrMonkeyForAFoot So your best defense is your inability or unwillingness to understand God's revelation? Now, if I asked you to explain the origin of the universe apart from God, you might confess that no one knows all the answers to that. I wonder, why is it you have faith when it suits you? Could it be because a godless universe makes it easier to sin?  "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23)

[DrMonkeyForAFoot]

@JesusIsUrSaviour I made arguments based upon your reasoning. Why do you make arguments based upon my person? If I am not mistaken, this is both an ad hominem argument and a strawman fallacy.

I find it quite funny that you constantly point out fallacies in the opposing arguments yet when questioned you seem to turn to those same fallacies in order to prove your point.

Your previous argument is riddled with fallacies. (Ran out of space)...

[DrMonkeyForAFoot]

@JesusIsUrSaviour ...Continued "So your best defense is your inability or unwillingness to understand God's revelation?" Complex question. You combine the questions "Are you unable to/unwilling to understand God?" with "do you believe in God?"

"I wonder, why is it you have faith when it suits you?" Strawman fallacy. Implying that my lack of Faith is the only ground on which I made My arguments.

[DrMonkeyForAFoot]

@JesusIsUrSaviour ...Continued

"Could it be because a godless universe makes it easier to sin?" Preconceived Idea that a supreme being is required for morality and Strawman fallacy Claiming that my godlessness is the only ground on which I made My arguments.

[Republica101]

That video was a clusterfuck of circular reasoning. If god is all powerful, and it did make the world as perfect, then does he not have the power to stop it? Why did he allow it to continue for so long? An analogy: If America did not stop the holocaust, only because they didn't want to yet, and had a 8000 year plan to stop it, even though we could do it in 3, would we not be committing a type of evil?

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@Republica101 God did provide the answer and the remedy by becoming a man and dying for our sins. You are caught in your own circle because your responses neglects the fact that there is a God and you are not him. Jesus Christ is the way of escape, the way out.

[Republica101]

@JesusIsUrSaviour Non sequiter. Nice.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@Republica101 You lament that God did not stop the evil. I tell you God's solution and you mistakenly accuse me of a logical fallacy of drawing a conclusion that does not follow my premise. It follows perfectly--man let sin into the world, a just and holy God provided a way for sin to punished and man to be saved, God showed his righteousness and his love by dying on the cross and offering us eternal life by faith in Jesus Christ. You don't follow because of your sinful, rebellious heart.

[Republica101]

@JesusIsUrSaviour A just and holy god would make a way out immeadiatly, so so many people don't go to hell. Instead, he decided to let millions go before the crucifixtion. Your own doctrine makes no sense.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@Republica101 Wrong again--God always provided man with a means of atonement--in every dispensation, God is merciful. And it IS immediate. The moment I trusted Christ my home in heaven was secure. Even so, where does your atheism provide for your feelings of disgust? If your beliefs are true, who cares if millions perish if it is just a part of life...You refute yourself again.

[Republica101]

@JesusIsUrSaviour "--in every dispensation, God is merciful" "God" told the hebrews to commit genocide. Multiple times. "Even so, where does your atheism provide for your feelings of disgust? If your beliefs are true, who cares if millions perish if it is just a part of life..." Atheism in itself provides for nothing. It's not a belief. That's where my own compassion comes in. Sure, not everyone cares, but religion doesn't change that.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@Republica101 Do you have any basis for compassion? Or is it just an arbitrary decision you made? If so, how do you decide who to be compassionate to? And if you choose, is it really compassion or just more neurons firing away? Jesus Christ said, "I have compassion on the multitude, because they are as sheep going astray without a shepherd". So the good shepherd, Jesus Christ, gave his life for the sheep (John 10). THAT is compassion.

[Republica101]

@JesusIsUrSaviour What do you mean by "really compassion"? Is any feeling really any more than chemical reactions? Or is there metaphysical meaning? I don't know. And my basis for compassion: Our species works best as a group, and said group should help the weak individiuals, and help make them strong. And don't quote John, as it's barely canonical, was written after the 12's deaths, and is only kept, as its the only book that Christ made references to his claiming divinity.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@Republica101 First, you keep flip-flopping. Are you a naturalism or not--you want to be naturalistic when it allows you a free pass to get rid of God, but then you fall back on all these concepts that could not exist in a universe of matter and energy alone. It is also funny how in one sentence you admit to not knowing metaphysical question and then order me around as to what books I can and cannot quote. Seems your open-mind ends when God enters the conversation.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@Republica101 But your line about the "species group help each other" is false, and a poor attempt by naturalists to rationalize compassion, etc. Darwin teaches a "struggle for life" where the "strong survive." By trying to explain things this way you not only refute your own evolutionary dogma, but you talk, again, in circles. All you have said was, "We're here because these things work. Why do they work? Because we're here."

[Republica101]

@JesusIsUrSaviour Individuals that group together become as a sort of superstructure, and therefore, stronger. To deny that is to deny that your body is made of cells. "Darwin teaches a "struggle for life" where the "strong survive." " And our morality and compassion make us stronger. Why do things work? I'm not sure myself. That doesn't mean that I can say, "God did it". Especially not yours, because Yahweh, without a doubt, does not exist. His existence has been refuted. In multiple ways.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@Republica101 What's more, you rely on logic without a basis for logic in your worldview. If there is no God, where did logic come from? If we are upright chemical reactions, how can we argue? Reason? Use logic? You refute yourself by using an idea (logic) that has no basis in your own worldview. That is irrational.

[Republica101]

@JesusIsUrSaviour Logic does have basis in my world view, it's just a naturalistic one.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@Republica101 Please provide an explanation of how logic comports with a worldview where we are merely matter and energy reacting according to blind natural processes.

[Republica101]

@JesusIsUrSaviour To be honest, I don't fully understand it myself. The same way a computer works, only we are shaped by natural selection, genetic drift, and such, while a computer is simply built, one after another.

[Acorafication]

Similarly, if you knew your neighbor was going to stab his wife to death when she got home an hour later, and you were capable of calling the cops and proving this to them, but you didn't, instead allowing the woman to die, you would be partially responsible for her death. In fact, to make the two situations even more similar, you put the knife in the hands of your neighbor, but told him 'Don't stab her with this. That would be bad'. God allowed suffering to be created, so he is to blame.

[Acorafication]

1. The 'words' analogy, while cute, is irrelevant. Sure, it's foolish to not accept that words exist when you are using words to express this, but turning this illogicality on him doesn't prove your god. It only proves that he's a fool.

2. God may have created everything perfect, but being omnipotent and omniscient, he knew that man was going to cause death and suffering, and he allowed it, though he was fully capable of stopping it. Therefore, he allows death and suffering. He is to blame.

[Acorafication]

3. Death is a natural part of life, as is suffering, but that doesn't make them less of a problem. We try to assuage suffering as best we can, since that helps to succession of our species. However, saying 'if evolution is right, they're natural' doesn't disprove evolution or prove your god. Quite the opposite. It only shows that you acknowledge that your God is allowing death and suffering, and you're too deluded to see the truth of this.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@Acorafication If death is just a natural part of life that further develops the species, why assuage it? Why not embrace it and maybe even advance it like some of the eugenics crowd; i.e., Margaret Sanger and the like. You want to have your proverbial Bible-cake--the notions of compassion and mercy--without the God of the Bible. Your statements remain largely arbitrary--how do these things exist in the naturalistic world you posit?

[Acorafication]

@JesusIsUrSaviour Death doesn't further develop the species, and no one would ever claim that it does. If anything, it hinders the development of the species. I already explained where compassion and mercy comes from, but if I must do so again, I will. Compassion and mercy allows us to empathize with our fellow humans better, allowing us to work better as a species rather then just as individuals. It is an evolutionary adaptation, and has nothing to do with god, unless you can prove otherwise.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@Acorafication 2. Wrong again. Yoy project your bias and then cite your bias as proof. Just because you don't understand does not mean you are right. God is not to blame for your lies, your lust, your blasphemy, your rebellion. But, God did make a sacrifice to cleanse us and redeem us--by no work of of our own--through the work of Jesus Christ. As such, God is totally justified and cleared of any blame someone might accuse him of.

[Acorafication]

@JesusIsUrSaviour 2.Then please, explain to me why your god lets millions of his supposedly loved children suffer, when he could easily assuage their torment? And then explain to me how you justify to yourself why your God is allowed to send the vast majority of his children to a place of eternal torture simply, in most cases, for ideology. I guarantee that if any human attempted to do such, you would call them immoral? What makes it right when your god does it? Simply because might makes right?

[bigpchamber]

THere is suffering in the world because the god of the bible does't exits.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bigpchamber What is "suffering" if the God of Bible does NOT exist? Isn't pain, death, and suffering just a natural, logical part of existence then?

[bigpchamber]

@JesusIsUrSaviour YES!! nature is amoral - an all powerful god would have to be immoral to allow the suffering many people endure. So god is either immoral or not all powerful or nonexistent. And don't give me this garbage about there being no basis for morality without god - people invented god and people invented morality.

[bigpchamber]

When God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, didn't he know they would? Is it beyond God's power to repair the damage Adam did? What about the suffering of non human animals - are they paying for Adam's sin? Couldn't God create a world where only non feeling life was eaten? Did god create the 60,000 parasites which invade the human body?

[bigpchamber]

When god put the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden, didn't he know adam would eat the fruit? Adam didn't know right from wrong, he could not have known the consequence of his actions. Is it just to allow suffering to all of humanity because of the actions of one naive man? Suffering makes sense from an evolutionary point of view - nature is amoral what is is what evolved. The naturalist view make much more sense to me.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bigpchamber First, suffering is not "suffering" in naturalistic view--it's what is supposed to happen. So why even ask the question if something is just or not because "justice" does not comport with your naturalism. In effect, you are borrowing a biblical presupposition--justice, mercy, etc.--to try to disprove the Bible. This is self-refuting.

[bigpchamber]

@JesusIsUrSaviour First, you did not get to second in your reply. Second, the bible does not own justice, mercy - they exist outside the bible. Every human society has justice and mercy along with injustice and cruelty (the bible has plenty of the latter two). third, i made no claim that unjust suffering disproves the bible - it does show that the  god described in the bible is not just or merciful or is not all powerful or does not exist.

[bigpchamber]

@bigpchamber Fourth, suffering is what is supposed to happen? God wants suffering? All powerful god who could eliminate suffering but doesn't? And this god is good and just and merciful? I'll stick with my naturalist world view thank you.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@bigpchamber There you go again, using injustice--a presupposition that could not exist in a naturalist worldview--to prove your naturalism. Again, this is blatantly self-refuting. Why are you a naturalist again? Can you provide a reason that is supported by your own naturalism and not by the existence of God?

[bigpchamber]

@JesusIsUrSaviour There is nothing self-refuting at all about the suffering argument. People have a built-in morality, probably the result of evolution. People have the ability to reason, observe and investigate. People are capable of improving their condition and their knowledge through these means. These are self-evident truths.

[ntoiyt]

I definitively did not mean to suggest in any way that you're a terrorist. All I meant is that your commitment to your religion is as mindless as the Muslims. If you were born in a Muslim country, you would be one zealous Muslim. You are Christian, not because you're thoughtful in any way. You simply have assimilated the culture's religious outlook. As far as sanctity of life is concerned, your god has been the chief cause of death, like drowning all humanity in gen. 6 and all barbarism in bibl

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

I don't accept your claim that faith in God and his word is mindless AND that my religious preference is somehow dependent solely on culture. First, God's word provides the preconditions of intelligibility--logic, morality, and uniformity in nature--that actually make knowledge possible. Two, you should read up on the explosive Christian movements within such restricted countries like China, Iran, and North Africa where Christianity is illegal and punishable by death.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

While certain cultures make it easier to purchase a Bible, God is still drawing all men to himself, as is evidenced by the thrust of conversions in the third world. Just the other day I read an anecdote of a North Korean who risks his life once a year to smuggle Bibles from China to North Korea under cover of darkness. Your claim here shows a prejudicial conjecture based on a lack of information on the topic.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

What's more, SIN is the cause of death, not God. The Bible says, "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). God gave these people--especially those before the flood--at least 120 years to repent, and they refused. Blaming God for being just enough to enforce consequences is like accusing law enforcement for criminals going to prison.

[ntoiyt]

I cannot be angry with god, to say this would be the same way as to suggest that I can get angry at Santa Claus. If god would have any reality, will he allow me to say such thing against him? Would not he do what he did to Ananias and Sapphira? God only lives in your imagination. Your zeal and fanaticism can only be matched by the zeal of the Muslims who will blow themselves because they believe it's the will of god. If you please, explain to me how is your faith different than a Muslim?

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

You mistake God's mercy for God's absence. The Bible says you would do this, " Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." (Eccl 8:11)

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

Also, it is a shameful equivocation to call me a terrorist. I could just as easily call you the next Hitler because you propagate a moral system that allows for relative moral reasoning that facilitates atrocities like the Holocaust. The Bible provides a basis for the sanctity of life--nowhere does Jesus Christ command his followers to strap bombs to themselves to show their devotion. In fact, Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of his enemies while dying on the cross.

[ntoiyt]

Your logic would be correct if the consequences do not come from the creator. In this video you seem to assume that the consequences came on their own. A just god would have make the crime fit the punishment. What kind of being would be a being who would punish his creatures eternally for a flimsy sin of eating from the forbidden tree. No only that, he punishes the offender and the descendants with the same intensity. Then of course to redeem for that, he punishes his own son. That's immoral.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

God is not immoral. God took the punishment on himself so he would be justified in pouring out his wrath and free to give us mercy. What kind of God would become a man and take the wages of sin upon himself? A gracious, loving, almighty one--the Lord Jesus Christ.

[ntoiyt]

What kind of god? Mmm, let me think, I would say some kind of schizophrenic god. First, he is mad because he really messed up with his creation. Then he is mad with the creature, and in order to apeace himself, he kills himself so he can forgive himself because he messed up in creating man. Wow, what a bastard prick this god is, and you worship him. Keep on! I have higher standards than that. I refuse to kiss my brains away to believe such a nonsense.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

Your anger and hatred of God is a sad testament to your misunderstanding of his grace and mercy. I am truly sorry you feel this way, but you will stand before this God you mock on judgment day. I pray you repent of your foolish behavior and come to worship the one who, though greater than you, lowered himself to become a man and die so that you might have peace and joy for eternity. This has nothing to do with brains; it is your sin that has blinded your heart.

[nitkoffsky]

@JesusIsUrSaviour This earthly life is but an insignificant drop of water when compared to the oceans of eternity. I was born & raised to follow Krishna. So, if I live my entire life as a devout Hare Krishna & never say the sinner's prayer to receive your Jesus & am judged for this cardinal sin & sent to hell to be punished for all eternity. This sentence is SO unjust for the "crime" I committed against your God! Therefore, I would have to conclude that your God is immoral.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

michael1791 had asked: What about those who don't believe in God? What does God give them? (Sorry, comment deleted by mistake).

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

First, I have to acknowledge and refuse to accept the assumption in that question. The post-modern presupposition inherent in this and similar questions is that disbelief somehow nullifies the existence of God or excludes one from the jurisdiction of God. Neither is the case. Consider an analogy: If we got the whole world to agree to stop believing in gravity, would that eradicate the existence of gravity? Of course not. Furthermore, if the whole world did not believe in gravity...cont

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

And the whole world walked off a building, would that protect them from falling? Of course not. We could say the same of God: On the one hand, I contend deep down you know there is a God. The Bible says the atheist "holds the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18).

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

On the other hand, you unknowingly rely on biblical presuppositions every day to make moral judgments or come to logical conclusions. Where does the concept of right and wrong come from? How did matter and energy develop immaterial, immutable, and universal laws of logic? Does atheism provide a rational basis for these conditions?

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

let's follow this premise: Do car makers know that there will be vehicle related deaths? Of course. Should they stop making cars then because some people die from reckless driving? Of course not. It is not their WILL that any should perish.

b). What's more, God's plan of redemption for fallen man--conceived in the mind of God BEFORE man was created--verifies God's omnsicience. He knew man would CHOOSE death, so he provided a way for man to be restored unto life.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

First, I can't really reply to your "ridiculous" comment. Just because something is "ridiculous" to you does not negate or confirm the truth of something. You need to have a rational reason for your position, other than that it rubs you the wrong way. If not, then you're position is arbitratry. Second, your reasoning is painfully flawed in your deduction about God's omniscience...a). Where does foreknowledge preclude omniscience? Cont...