So basically you feel sorry for yourself that you have diabeties, more then likely from overinduldging, and want to blame someone other then yourself.  To pull from another thread, Job had a lot more done to him then a sickness.  He lost everything except his life.  However, unlike you, Job had the streangth of moral character to stick by God and what he believed in, knowing that end results are more important.  If you ever get a chance to read the end of Job, God ends up doubling Jobs belongings and family from the begining of the book. 

Think about it. 

Good point, Piper.

Sticking with God might not be such a bad thing if you didn't have to lie to yourself in order to do it.

A doctor performs a successful operation, you make a wise investment and it pays off and God gets all the credit despite having no part in the activity whatsoever.

God kills thousands in a natural disaster or part of the body he created starts growing uncontrollably (cancer), someone doesn't get the healing they've prayed years for - God's nowhere to be found when the responsibility for those things rolls around, is he?

Christians blame Satan (Though, according to Christianity, God has rulership over Satan. You said it yourself) or the person who got the disease (my Christian wife actually went as far as to blame me for getting thyroid cancer - you blamed Matt for contracting diabetes). The person who prayed for healing for years while getting nothing from God? Why, that person is accused of not praying properly or not having enough faith.

Why absolve God from the bad things he does?

Your turn. Think about it.

Wow so much to "think about."  You all are so original.  I can't believe how easy it is to get you all to make the same arguments over and over again. 

 

Lets say, for example, that a child of yours is playing baseball out at the park.  This particular park has a bunch of houses around it. (Stop me if you know where i'm going) A friend of yours lives in one of these houses.  As your son comes up to bat, he hits the best home run ever.  It sails and flys father then anyother hit that day.  And then it smashes into the house next door to your friend.  Your friend see's this and calls you up right as the game breaks up and the children scatter fearful of the consequenses.  Your friend tells you what happens and leaves you to deal with the problem.  A little while later your son walks in all out of breath and red in the face.  "Whats wrong son" you ask, conviently, you already know the answer.  I don't know if i'm made my point or not but there really isn't anything left to point out with that one. 

 

And the question that I wanted you to ask.  "doesn't that make God responsible?" 

 

Lets start with what you believe.  Bad things happen to people for no apparent reason and nobody cares how it happens or what your supposed to do about it. 

and on to the Christian view point(which for some reason just sounds better)

God causes trials in your life to shake up the rythem of your life and test the foundation of your faith.  If when small things happen in life to cause you small amounts of pain, your dog dieing for instance, you curse and hate God because he let something bad happen in your life, then your weak.  If, however,  you draw closer to God and look for the positive in the negative,(or looking outside yourself towards how your example can influence the lives of others) then when worse things happen, i.e. family members die, you get a deiseise.  Then you will be more capable of dealing with those situations with God there helping you.  Instead of doing it by yourself with nothing to help you.

 

God put pain and suffering in this world to give people a choice.  The utopia that you suggest would make us robots.  You made a choice to be an athiest.  That is respectful, because it is very noticable that you are sticking with your choice.  Are bad things still going to happen to you? Yes, thats part of life.  How you respond to them is what matters.  Some people make the choice to believe in the "higher power."  Is it for everybody.  I think the only point that everybody on the website can agree with is, no, God is not for everybody.  I can't tell you that you should believe in God.  I don't know what you've been through in life or the circumstances surrounding why you chose to reject God.  All I can say is that, YES, God does love you.  And even if He does through some trouble your way, all He wants is for you to trust Him. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God" Romans 8 v 28.  When we dropped the Bomb on Japan, did it really suck yeah, why did we do it?  To save thousands of lives in the long run.  Both American and Japanese. 

 

Think about it

A test is a means of obtaining knowledge. Why does an all-knowing God need to test anyone? He should already know how founded your faith is. Do you somehow expect God to act surprised when someone's faith doesn't hold up? "Oh, crap, his faith was weak after all! I had no idea!" Does God use the scientific method when testing people's faith?

Omniscience is just a plot device for you people, apparently. Why do Christians never take God's supposed attributes seriously? No one ever thinks about the ramifications of omnipotence, or omniscience, or omnimorality, or omnipresence, or omnibenevolence. They're plot devices. God is just a father figure up until he needs to inspire prophecies or do a miracle, then he's OMNIGOD, super king of the universe, unlimited in all his ways! It's like Clark Kent and Superman. God's just a regular guy, like you and me, but he's up in Heaven. But then someone prays that their cancer will be cured, and suddenly God ducks into a phone booth! Out comes OMNIGOD! Who looks at the person's cancer, shrugs, and says "Eh, pray harder next time. I don't think you meant it." and then they suffer from cancer for a year or so, curse God, die, and go to Hell. "I saw this coming -- the cancer, the pain, the suffering, the apostasy, the damnation -- using my powers of omniscience," says OMNIGOD, "but really, what's an omnipotent being to do?" It is to laugh! Ha ha!

If you know what results your actions will have, and can choose to do something else, but then you do those actions anyway, you are responsible for what happens as a result of those actions. It is the very heart of the concept of responsibility. An all-knowing God will know what results his actions have with absolute certainty. An all-powerful can choose to do anything else. When he creates a universe, he knows with total knowledge what will happen within that universe, and he can choose to set up the universe so it happens in any other way possible. At the moment of creation, God would have known every aspect of the universe he was creating, every aspect of human life, every aspect of my parent's life, every aspect of my life, every aspect of every thought and every social influence and every behavior and every environmental stimulus and every single thing going on in my brain and mind and soul, every aspect that would lead me to become an atheist. And God, by not changing his mind and rearranging the universe at creation so I would end up as a Christian, has given his apparent implicit consent for me to be an atheist. Obviously God wants me to be an atheist. If he didn't, I wouldn't be one. How can an all-powerful all-knowing superbeing not get what he wants, after all? And if God wants me to be an atheist, but he also sends atheists to Hell, I guess God wants me to go to Hell. How rude!



So God, with infinite knowledge and infinite power, apparently couldn't find a better way to give people choices than putting pain and suffering into the mix. Of course, this just brings up another good point that theists never bother refuting: how do you reconcile an all-knowing being with free will? If God knows what will happen, that means everything is determined to happen just as he knew it would. When Jesus said Peter would deny him thrice before the cock crew, did Peter have a choice in the matter? Or did he just think he had one?

There's really no choice, if God is omniscient; you just think there is because you don't know all the factors that determined your decision. God does, though. To him we're all puppets. To say that humans have free will while God is all-knowing is to say that limited beings like humans somehow have the power to subvert God's will. Is God ever surprised when humans do things? Did someone ever convert on their deathbed or stab their wife with a screwdriver, and God went "Oh me, I didn't see that one coming!"?

You can say God lets human will take priority over his own will. This sounds reasonable at first, until you realize it's self-contradictory. If God lets humans express will, then it must be his will that they do so. So essentially you're saying that God lets his own will take priority over his own will. Guh? The reconciliation of free will with divine predetermination is a pretty tough theological conundrum. Christians more eloquent than you have tried and failed. Will you be the one to solve this age-old mystery? Will you finally be the one to make a logical explanation of how humans can have a free choice when an omniscient God knows every action they'll ever take, in advance?

I doubt it.



The question todangst always asks here is what, specifically, would be so bad about being a robot? Do you know what it is like to be a robot? If no one ever had free will or freedom in the first place, if the concept never existed who would miss it? I wonder if there are aliens in an alternate dimension, discussing the concept of skizblorp? One of them asserts that without skizblorp, we'd all be spoozwibbs. No one wants to be a spoozwibb!

The question I always ask is what would make this "utopia" that you seem to hate so different from Heaven. Heaven is supposedly a place of no suffering, no pain, no immorality, no unhappiness. Is there free will in Heaven? Did you know I've never gotten a straight answer on this question from a theist? If there is free will in Heaven, then obviously it is entirely within God's power to create a place with free will that is the sort of utopia we're talking about, and the question is why God would bother with the suffering of Earth when he could just start out with Heaven. Whereas if there is no free will in Heaven, then obviously God doesn't care about it as much as theists do, and the question is why free will is so important if God won't even put it in Heaven. Is there an answer to this? The only answer is to assert that Heaven is not a place of no suffering, no pain, no immorality, no unhappiness. And, well, that would just ruin the whole point, wouldn't it?



Really? It's kind of unusual that an all-powerful unlimited being beyond time and space would just happen to have human emotions! It's almost like you're projecting yourself onto God! But no theist would ever do that, right? Do you even know what the word "love" means? Hint: It's not putting one-third of your infinite transcendent self through a day or so of finite mortal suffering in order to change your own mind and then granting that one-third of yourself ultimate power and billions of worshippers for eternity. That's not love, that's a two-man con. "Love me, I'm suffering!" "Believe in me, my son is suffering!" Then the son gets raised back up to Heaven and then Father and Son sit back and let all the love and belief in the world pour in, and all they had to do was use a little omnipotence to make a trivial and instantly-reversed sacrifice. That's not love, man.

Also, please explain something no Christian has ever explained satisfactorily: if God is the all-loving creator, why do those who don't love him back get condemned to an eternity of the worst suffering imaginable? Hell is not punishment, it's petty vengeance. Why did an all-loving God create Hell in the first place? Is that really how you define love? In your eyes, is a loving parent one who sees his or her child perform some infraction, waits seventy years and then tortures them forever? When Christians assert that God is hurt or offended at their actions, it is the ultimate hubris: the assertion that the all-powerful god, the creator of the world and the universe, cares very very deeply when you, a small limited being who lives for about seventy years out of eternity, happen to think of pretty girls. When your child refuses to brush their teeth, do you stab them with a trident? Burn them alive? Beat then to death? What if your child doesn't love you? Is it love if you then decide to torture them? Does this make any sense to you? Is that what love is? Burning people alive for eternity? How idiotic. Seriously. When you reply to this, I want you to think this before each answer: "Does my answer include the concept of a loving god who creates a place of eternal torment and then sends people there?" If your answer is "yes", you need to start over. You can argue that humans choose hell of their own volition by rejecting God, like all Christians do, and while you're at it you might want to explain who made hell an option in the first place. Hint: It's the guy who invented "options" and "choice" and "volition" in the first place. Second hint: It's God! You can blame humans all you want, God is still the one who made Hell a choice.



There's lots of ways of accomplishing that besides making us suffer. First, you know, he could give the world absolutely undeniable and uncontrovertible evidence of his existence. (Which he hasn't, because if he had, no one could deny it by definition, and these forums would not exist.) Supposedly everyone will get this evidence at the Judgement Day, when every knee will bow, but why wait? Let's just get it over with now! Then everyone could convert and no one would have to go to Hell. It's a win-win situation!



We did it because we're not omnipotent superbeings who can alter the world and the war with a snap of our fingers. If the Americans were all-powerful, they could just have easily turned the Japanese munitions into, say, cherry cheesecake. Or sushi. That way the Japanese can't fight and no one dies! Win-win for everyone!

Using the limits of limited human beings when making analogies to unlimited super transcendent deities is not a smart move. Try not to do it again, it just makes you look like you're bad at reasoning.

It's really amusing to read how Ziggy accuses us of making the "same old tired arguments" without responding to a single one of them.

 I wil give you credit for acknowledging that god brings pain and suffering into people's lives. It's a welcome change from the "blame the victim" approach that so many christians use (and that you used in the beginning of this thread).

It's refreshing to see someone acknowledge god as being a bastard (even though you added a lot of fluff to try and justify his actions). 

 Hey, did you hear about that study that showed how injecting pancreatic cells with capsaicin -- the stuff that makes chili peppers hot -- reversed diabetes in mice? I bet that shit ain't in the Bible. (At least until some fundamentalcase twists some verse about berries into saying something about a cure for diabetes.)

Wow, such an overbearing respose to someone who speaks what he feels is the truth.  Wow. 

 

So with all this outpouring of love from this website for me I had to choose the points that were made against mine.  Since I have a job that takes up the bulk of my time, I don't have the luxery of going through all of the arguments line by line copying and pasting until I feel satisfied.  So if you will forgive me I will make a few generalizations, please keep that in mind.

 

1. If God is all knowing shouldn't He already know if you can survive the trials He puts toward you?

2. Since God is all powerful howcome He can't just have everyone go to heaven. 

3. Why do the ones who don't love God go to hell?

 

Now my responses.

 

1.  Yes He knows.  I think I worded my argument bad.  I should of said that God allows events to take place in your life that will motivate you to call out to God for assistance.  Much like soldiers on a battle field.  Does the General care for his troops? yes.  Does he still send them out to war? yes. When those warriors get into the heat of battle, and need help they get on their radio and call for support.  The general sends in air support, artillary, back up troops.  Ephesians says that we are soldiers of Christ.  When people join the military they know that the job they are going to do has a certian amount of risk involved.  Do they still trust in their leaders and do what they say? most of the time.  So my point being, if the general really cared for his troops he wouldn't send them into battle, but then wars wouldn't be faught, and countries would fall to other countries not afraid to use those who volunteered to do battle.  People will still die, friends are going to be lost, mothers will cry.  Is this the generals fault. Some might think so.  He is the one ultimately responsible for sending the troops in.  But again the soldier volunteered.  Being a christian isn't easy, infact it's downright hard, but no one is forced to become a christian.  There is noone holding a gun to their head saying "believe in christ or die."

I'm not telling you to believe in God.  All i'm trying to do is point out why I do.

 

2. Again I point out the time old argument, if God didn't give us a choice, then we would be mindless robots serving an unloving God.  Because we have that choice we make it personal.  The love that I have for my parents isn't something that I have just because they are my parents.  It's because I have taken the time to get to know them as I grow up, foster the realtionship between us because thats what love is. 

3.  This one is almost like the last one.  I don't have an exact answer to this question, I can just tell you what makes sense to me, I'm not saying you'll agree, probably not, but i'll try.  When given a choice of say, a nice fresh slice of watermelon, nice and red, or the option of eating a bowl of salt, which one would you choose?  I would choose the watermelon, maybe sprinkle a little salt on it, but if I had a choice between the two, then deffinatly the watermelon.  Now bringing that onto heaven and hell.  I would rather not burn for eternity, since I've already made the choice to love God, spending eternity with Him, isn't really going to dissapoint me all that much. 

 

Again I'm sorry that I can't refute all the mindless arguments that you all have so graciously posted to my comments, but I do not, regretably, have the time.  Some of them I would very much like to. 

I'm sorry for responding to your arguments on a forum for debate. Perhaps next time I should just say "you are entitled to your fallacious arguments so I'll just let them slide without pointing out the flaws".



Aw. "You big meanie atheists, responding to my points!"



We all have jobs too. Learn to type and think faster, and soon you'll be cranking out big long posts like mine in no time! It doesn't take that much free time to respond to these things; stop implying that we're all jobless layabouts.



Now imagine an all-powerful all-knowing general who can stop the war with a snap of his fingers, but sends his men out to die anyway. That will help fix your analogy, I think. You really need to stop conveniently forgetting that God is not a human general: he is, by the very tenets of your own religion, a being beyond time and space who knows everything and can do anything and loves everyone. Does this apply to human generals you know? Are human generals omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent superbeings? Not even Patton was like that. This just shows what Christians really think of their God: he's just this guy. He's a human. He's a father figure. Sure, they go on about how he's all-powerful and all-knowing and transcendent and beyond time and space, but these are just plot devices, brought up only when it serves a pressing theological need. God is omnipotent when you need to explain a miracle, but not when it comes to preventing evil. God is omniscient when it comes to explaining prophecy, but not when it comes to pre-determination of human will. God is all-loving when he sends Christ to suffer for a few days, but not when it comes to sending humans to suffer for eternity. In Christians' eyes, God is just another person.



The wars that this all-powerful all-knowing general could have stopped entirely with a blink of his eye. (And if you don't like that analogy, how about a general who commands an army of tanks that can drive themselves and can stop the war easily, but who sends own his soldiers to fight anyway.)



The other countries that this all-powerful all-knowing general would be able to command to not do battle with the merest word from his lips. Our all-powerful all-knowing general could control any country he wished. He is all-powerful, after all. With a glance at his opponents, they would lay down their arms at his whim.



It is if the all-powerful all-knowing general has every option at his command to stop the war -- use efficient robot machines, make his side's diplomats masters of irresistible rhetoric, negotiate an eternal truce, make the enemy see how silly it is to fight, foster diplomatic relationships between his people and the other people, make the enemy's guns disappear by snapping his fingers, change the enemy's mind with a simple thought, take away the human instinctual temptation to violence, take away the concept of violence entirely, move everyone into an eternal paradise with no sin or suffering -- and knows that these options will work so much more better than sending human troops into battle. He evaluates all these options, knowing that each one is a better option than sending his troops to die, and knowing that any option is as easy as the rest -- he can blink and stop any war any way he wanted. Then he decides to send some people to die anyway. There we go. That's a much better analogy.



The all-powerful all-knowing general knew the soldier would volunteer, and in fact, since every aspect of the universe is under this general's control and will, he pre-ordained every aspect of the soldier's life so that the soldier would indeed volunteer. The soldier merely thinks it was his choice, when in fact our devious all-powerful all-knowing general was behind it all from the beginning.



Yeah, it must be hard, having an all-powerful best friend who listens to all your prayers and will whisk you away to eternal paradise when you die. Must be a real pain, that.



No, instead we get "Believe in Christ or when you die you will spend eternity in flames, which is worse than dying." Seriously, it looks bad for you if you forget the basic tenets of your own religion.



Except that from God's point of view, we already are mindless robots. He knows every factor determining every thought of every person at every moment. Humans beings see uncaused choice in our actions because we don't and can't know every factor influencing our behavior; a subconscious memory, innate reflex, a hard-wired predisposition, or anything else below the level of consciousness. We perceive these influences as uncaused events from the will. But God would see all of these things. God knows all the unknown factors that humans attribute to free will. He would know, from the very instant of creation, who will love him, when they love him, how they love him, and watch it all unfold according to the plan he himself had determined at creation. Everything would be determined by his hand; just like mindless puppets. If God knows everything, from the moment of creation, there can be no free will, only the illusion of free will derived from humans' inability to know all the factors that go into their thoughts. If God is omniscient, he created us all to follow in his own plan: his will, not ours. We would have no will of our own, only the will he gave to us. Does God get surprised when we make a choice? How can God perceive us as anything besides mindless robots following his divine command? What you're arguing would necessarily require that human beings can supercede God's will and might through their own will and might -- that even if God wants A, humans don't have to do A. An all-powerful all-knowing deity not getting what he wants. It's hilarious when you think about it. Imagine poor old God, sitting up there in Heaven, shaking his fist impotently as people on Earth go around making choices! "Nooooo! This isn't what I wanted! If only I knew everything so I could have seen this coming! If only I could do anything so I could make humans however I wanted! Foiled by my own imperfect creation who I created exactly as I wanted who behave exactly as I knew they would!"



How, precisely, do you have a personal relationship with something that is not a person? Do you talk with God? Does he have lunch with you? Can you hug God? Even by the admission of his flock, God never interacts with humans beyond the occasional feeling. Is that how you foster a personal relationship, through gut feelings? Do you base your relationship with your parents solely on a "gut feeling" that your parents love you, while a bunch of people who say they know your parents tell you that they love you and you should love them? Building a personal relationship requires personal interactions: talking, socializing, commisserating, empathizing. Does God do anything of these things with you?

And what does God get out of this personal relationship? Think about all the reasons human beings have personal relationships. Do any them apply to God? Does God need emotional support? A shoulder to cry on? Does he need someone who can empathize with his problems? Why on Earth does God feel compelled to be loved? Does he need social contact? Does he need to swap gametes? The entire notion of a God needing personal relationships and love is absolutely ridiculous. How are humans supposed to empathize with a transcendental super being? Why would an unlimited god beyond time and space choose to not come face-to-face with the people he wants a relationship with?



That's a terrible analogy. Let's improve it.
First, let's say that the person making the watermelon-and-salt choice really loves you, but instead of giving you a choice between watermelon and something less pleasant but ultimately harmless like warm water, or even just a choice of only watermelon, he gives you a worse choice of watermelon and salt.
Second, you're given no good evidence that the bowls contain anything in the first place, or that they contain what the host says they do. You're not given a choice to see if your host is the real deal before you choose one. He just has his friends give you a book saying that one bowl has watermelon and the other has salt, and that you have to pick one. You don't even get to talk to the host at all, or meet him. You learn everything about him through a book and some people who say they're his friends.
Third, these people says that in order to get the watermelon, you have to love and worship the host, because he loves you. The host is a powerful man, and he can stop all the crime in the city if he wanted, and as you're told this a group of children is mugged and shot to death across the street.
Four, instead of salt, the other bowl contains napalm. If you don't pick the watermelon, or refuse to make a choice, you get held down and force fed burning napalm. Forever.
Fifth, instead of watermelon and salt, we replace the entire thing with an all-powerful all-knowing deity who knows what choice you'll make to begin with and can influence that choice however he sees fit. You don't get to see what your choices are, you don't even know if there even is a choice until you die and it's too late. You don't get to see your choices up close and personal before you die, you merely have the word of an old text that's not very convincing. Then if you make the wrong choice, this deity (who loves you very very very much) decides to torture you for eternity (because he loves you), instead of giving you another try, or giving you only a finite punishment (like a Purgatory but for everyone), or giving you undeniable evidence that the choices are real. (And you can't say that the evidence we already have is undeniable, because there are those who deny it.)



So, uh, do so. Surely you have some free time. A decent reply two days after the fact is better than no reply never, or a poor reply five minutes later.

 Haha, "omnilazy" is awesome. I'm totally going to start using this.

You're posting on an atheist website.  What did you expect?

I like this example of the general and his army, because we can take this example one step further.  A general can love his troops, but will still send them in battle, knowing some will not return (you had this part right).  However, this is always done when there is no choice because the risk is too great if he didn't (ie, a lot more people would die if he didn't).  But what if the general sent his troops in needlessly?  What if the general was the one who started the war in the first place, and knew there would be no end in site?  Remember, if God is the creator of everything, then he didn't just send his soldiers in to battle, it also means that he send in the enemy (fully loaded) as well.

As for Christianity not being easy, of course it isn't.  I know, I used to be very devote.  I served at church, stayed chaste, the rector at my church even wanted me to become a Sub-Deacon (this is a position in the Anglican church, I don't know if Roman Catholics or other denominations have it, but it is formal position of someone who helps the priest with communion and other rites that the servers can not help with).  But life as an atheist isn't any easier, heck, if anything, it's harder.  I still have morals to follow, I still need to figure out what is right and wrong.  The only difference now is, I don't have any one that will automatically forgive me.  I need to take full responsibility for all my actions, and all of their consiquences.  The true fact of the matter is, that life itself is hard, and it always will be.  What matters, is how you deal with life when it gets hard, and of course, how to deal with others when their life gets hard.  Believing in a god only gets in the way of this.

Fine.  However, I think I can safely say that many of us (myself included) are trying to get you to leave behind your belief in a god (or at the very least, take a good hard look at your beliefs).

JeremiahSmith brought a really good point about this, and I think it's one you need to address if you want to say that a perfect world would make us robots.  Heaven is supposed to be a perfect existence.  If your argument is true, then would we not be stuck as mindless robots for all eternity once we die?

I think you also forget what the ramifications of omnipotence means.  Even if we accept the notion that a perfect world would make us into robots (a notion that I do not accept), that is only because of how the world exists now.  If God is omnipotent, then can make ANY possible reality, no matter how contradictory it may seem to us in this reality, including a reality where we are all loving, we all know god, where peace is eternal, AND we have perfect free will.  Again, this may seem contradictory to us at first, but if god is omnipotent, then nothing is contradictory.

Yuck, I hate watermelon  Anyways,

Of course you would rather go to heaven then hell.  Who in there right mind wouldn't?  I know I would rather spend all eternity in paradise instead of burning in hell forever.  But the point isn't about what we want, it is about what god wants:

Why does God want some (if not most) of us to burn in hell?

Needless to say, I don't actually think an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent god would create such a reality as this, and therefore we don't need to worry about roasting in Hades forever.  We do however, need to worry about how we treat each other in the time we do have.

Are you demonstrating the love of Christ? Wow, you've just convinced me. I'm returning to the fold so I can be an asshole and never feel guilty about it because I did it for god!!!

 On edit: I dare you to blame me for my diabetes.  Go on.  I want to you hear you.  You don't know the first thing about how either Mattshizzle or I became diabetic.  You don't know if it's Type 1 or Type 2.  You don't know anything about the disease process, yet you judge first and don't even bother to ask questions.  (And theists wonder why we get pissed.)

If you're doing that, you're trolling, which is against the rules here.

I've always loved that! Used it several times.

It's interesting that this person didn't start to backpeddle until his/her morality was strongly questioned.  Hmmm.

Yeah, a quote from the Babble is going to work. At least you showed your true colors now.

Oh gee, I've had the Buybull quoted at me. The interesting thing about being raised fundy is it's easy to do this:

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I think you're a Christian asshole, a HELLBOUND Christian asshole.

Bender from Futurama wrote:

Are you familiar with the old robot saying "DOES NOT COMPUTE"?

I like how you just quote the Bible at us instead of responding to any of the points I made. It makes me feel appreciated. But since apparently you're not too good at responding to long posts, I'll just sum it up for you so you don't have to tax your brain with too much complicated things like "making clear, logical, and coherent arguments" and "reading comprehension" and "using the little scrolly wheel on your mouse".

Is there free will in Heaven, where there is no suffering or sin?

Is there free will at Judgement Day, when "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord"?

 Try to keep your answers brief, but also try to put a "yes" or "no" in there too.

And another one bites the dust. Hopefully he coughed it back up.

 

Well, he can probably BS his way that far.