So you don't have any evidence, got it. You are merely here to preach.
Why, I should have thought that was obvious. You stated: "God does not make threats." Yet Alvira, and many others, continually make Pascal's Wager, which clearly recognizes that God is making a threat, and recommends responding to the threat by capitulation to it.
That is a distinction without a difference. It is a threat. Believe in me or else. Oh, so you are one of those. There are plenty of passages in the Bible which threaten eternal fire, which certainly make it sound as if it is meant literally. There are some believers who recognize the immorality of eternal torture, however, so now God has been changed and the Bible has been changed to make it a kinder, gentler hell. Living without the presence of God is no different from what I experience now, which is no particular emotional or spiritual torment, certainly nothing equivalent to a metaphorical burning fiery pit. If all you are saying is that God will leave people alone (exactly how it is now), then that's no problem.
[ETA] Tying back to Pascal's Wager as Alvira presented it: if there is no literal hell, then one is "safe" from the fiery pit whether one believes in God or whether one doesn't. Thus, Pascal's Wager provides no particular reason to believe in God. [/ETA]
I'll also note that you plainly admit you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you consider literal and which you do not. What criteria are you using to determine and distinguish which parts are literal and which are not?
And yet it is exactly this injustice that Christians argue for. If murderous political leaders "repent" on their deathbeds, even after a lifetime of hatred and genocide and murder, then God suspends the natural order of things and allows them to spend eternity with him. Would you consider it fair if someone who had raped and murdered and stolen was allowed into heaven after living unrepentant until the last second? Yet that is the Christian promise: no matter how much evil you have done your entire life, if you repent at the last second, it doesn't matter, you get into heaven. Conversely, no matter how much good a person may have done, how many people helped, or how loving the person has been, he/she is consigned to eternal torment if they didn't happen to believe or say one particular thing. That's not fair, just or merciful.
No, that is actually what the Christians say. Robert Green Ingersoll called it "sinning on credit." It doesn't matter how bad someone has been during their lifetime, if they but repent on their deathbed then God considers that hunky dory. It's the Christians who say that God must then be merciful. It's Christians who are proposing that injustice, not I. What? women don't count?
oh yes, and all those who lived before Jesus are just out of luck
Yes. Please note that "mercy" is the antithesis of "justice." You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. You'll note that letting a murderer, rapist, robber into heaven does nothing to address or redress the victims of the murders, rapes, and robberies. So justice has not been done, whether God sentences the person to heaven or hell, but most certainly not if the last-minute-repentant person is then allowed into heaven.
No. In the first place, mercy and justice are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the other but not both. In the second place, it IS a huge sacrifice to require people to sacrifice their integrity, their personality, their maturity, their independence, their liberty. It is neither just nor merciful to punish people for what they cannot help. It is neither just nor merciful to demand the impossible.
No. All you have argued for is manifest injustice. A substitutionary human sacrifice is barbaric and evil. Accepting for the moment the argument that ALL MUST pay the price of living in hell, then justice requires that ALL MUST go to hell. There would be absolutely no one in heaven, if justice is to be served. Of course, there is no reason whatever to accept that there is a God, or a God-man Jesus, or a heaven or a hell. Those are still unproven assertions.
Of course it is. Is your God all-powerful, or not? If he is, then he could simply do away with hell. How can anything that happens, or anything that exists, do so against God's will?
that's the story, the preachment, of course. If what you say here is true, then you admit that your God is NOT all-powerful.
1) See? you admit that it's a threat! 2) Of course it does ... how could it possibly be otherwise?
Of course it can. All God has to do is say, "Hell, begone!" Unless, of course, God is not all-powerful.
I thought everything was possible with God?
Yet he supposedly lets plenty of sinners into heaven ... the ones who "repent." So he CAN be near sin. Plus, he supposedly, while still "fully God" made himself into a man and WAS able to be near sinful human beings. You are not making sense.
Yes, you look at the evidence. The evidence is either compelling or it is not. If you do not find the evidence compelling, I doubt very much that you could "choose" to believe. Do you "choose" to believe in mountains, rainbows, other human beings? Could you "choose" NOT to believe in those things? No. "Faith" has nothing to do with it. Either there is evidence upon which to believe something, or there isn't. If there is no evidence for something, I doubt very much that you could "choose" to believe it anyway. Could you "choose" to believe in fairies or ghosts?
I'll thank you not to project your misconceptions onto me. All that I have is the evidence in front of me, which consists principally of the evidence that both of us agree exists. We agree on the existence of people, trees, rocks, stars, mountains, lakes, oceans, animals, plants, etc. As to God, I ask again, what God? Please be specific in your definition of what you mean. What is the evidence that establishes the existence of any God? Again, please be specific, and delineate the criteria which allow you to determine its existence.
You've gone about it backwards. The default position is the suspension of belief. Unless and until there is evidence to believe that something is true, then there is no reason to believe it. Thus, unless and until there is evidence for the existence of some God, then there is no reason to believe that there is one. The burden of proof is on the person who is making a positive assertion, i.e., that God exists. Those claims are subject to evaluation to determine whether there is any reason to believe they are true. If there isn't enough evidence to show that a God exists, then of necessity you are left in the position of an atheist as to that god-claim. Indeed, you yourself are in the atheist position as to all god-claims but one.
no, you are making unsubstantiated claims. Provide the evidence
Standard apologetic to question the motives of unbelievers. Stop projecting "unwillingness to see the truth" onto others. Your efforts would be better spent in bringing forth your evidence and making your arguments, instead of questioning the motives of others. If you have evidence, bring it. First things first: Define which God you mean, and describe a workable method of determining whether any such thing exists. Please note, I have no interest in preaching, only in actual evidence.