Again, I don't blame god, in the same way, to me, I don't blame Santa for what I don't get on Christmas. I was just responding to the contradictory statements part.
I dunno if its necessarily a double standard. I'd look at it more that god's would be entrapment followed by punishment.
Like parents that entrap their children? I mean we all know as parents that we will have to punish our children, yet we birth them anyway? I know you are a father, so this definitely relates to you. Or how about we blame ourselves as parents to birth our children to live in such a dangerous world? We knew how dangerous it is, yet we bring more children in to suffer. Why the double standard?
Tjat's hardly a double standard though. I didn't create the world to be a dangerous place, and then choose to bring a child into it. I created my child in that I had sex with her mother, but I didn't start from an early design process of deciding exactly the way I want her constructed.
Says you. You create the home for your child, that has dangerous things in it. Leave your infant alone in your home for a day by themselves and it is quite possible they could severely hurt themselves. And your relation to my God as making a dangerous world is out of biblical context. It started perfect without death or harm. Only until man decided to disobey God was when it became dangerous
ahhh I understand, The downfall of man was mans fault, not Gods. Again you might as well blame gravity if you are dumb enough to walk off a cliff.
This is why it's hard to debate Atheists. They will use the Bible "out of context" to argue, then claim the Bible false when it goes against their argument. I laid out a perfectly good philosophical argument, which uses the naturalist way of thinking and the Biblical in parallel. RR7, God bless him, has picked a small sample size from the Bible to try and argue the point. This is truly a "black and white" type philosophical argument. You can't support man's right to punish, then be angry with God's right to punish.
But I'm working within specific limits. If I start completely from scratch, and can design a perfect home, and a perfect child, and a perfect environment, I imagine I would. If I could do whatever I wanted, why would I create, say, bleach to be around my house wher my daughter could drink it and die when instead I could just make a powerful cleaning solution that will both act like bleach, but also taste and react to body like water. I'd have no constraints, and thus wouldn't feel the need to put in many of the dangers. And you could argue then that she wouldn't be learning like right from wrong, or the dangers of things, but if those dangers don't exist, there's no read to teach and learn and protect from them. And you're no worse for wear.
I'm unsure what you're saying. I wouldn't blame gravity, or the cliff. I blame man, same way I do for any of their downfalls and shortcomings.
Or let's outline the true argument here. Atheist argument 1.) God is moral, therefor he must not punish 2.) God punishes 3.) Therefor God is not moral So are we saying man is not moral because we punish?
I'm not intentionally taking anything out of context. I'm not angry with god's right to punish, any more so than I am angry with unicorns crapping in my yard.
But you again took the Bible's description of the Garden of Eden out of context again. See there was danger. The tree of knowledge did exist and man's choice to eat from this tree destroyed the perfection. And trying to think as a perfect creation "like God" is hardly admissible since you and I or anyone else, for that matter, are not perfect. We cannot even comprehend the motives of creation from a perfect being.
The true argument? I don't think an atheist would make that specific argument. My atheist argument would go 1.) There is no god. 2.) Man punishes man for doing man things 3.) ??? 4.) Profit
Wait a minute?!?! This was an argument for those that use the argument. If you don't believe it, then why are you defending it? You cannot defend what you don't care or believe. That gives you an unfair advantage because you can straddle the fence and use the "Well I am not using the God would be evil if he sent us to hell" card.
If god had wanted automatons, thats what he would have made. He gave us souls and free will. We have the ability to choose not only what happens on this plane, but the next. Most would think that these are gifts from God, where you see them as a detriment.
That argument doesn't flow. Let's break it down 1.) There is no God... 2.) Why do you think there is no God? 3.) Support on why there is no God 1.) Man punishes man for doing man things. --- Well there is no argument there by me. That was entirely off my point. 3.) ??? And what is this? 4.) Profit - Again what is this used for in our debate?
But an atheist doesn't believe in god of the bible, so they can think that that character in to them/us, a fictional book, is evil if he sends us to hell. It doesn't make me angry, in that matter, then. So it brings it back to the begnning which was simply saying that it's not a contradiction to support one punishing and not the other, because the situations and options provided are vastly different between man and god of the bible.
You are missing the argument that you tried to defend in the first place. This was directed towards Atheist that use "God is a spiteful and evil God to send people to hell". Do you use this argument? If you don't, then your opinions hold no merit. As you say "You believe the Bible is a fictional book" and if you aren't using "God is a spiteful and evil God to send people to hell", then what purpose are you even in this debate in the first place?
I'm not saying free will is a detriment. But don't see a benefit to bad choices being an option. Why does murder have a place in our thoughts at all, for instance?
