Does god get fed up of having to forgive sex offenders and murderers ?

[denlin]

when you love a child and he is taken away to the mines from the street and you hear they have died there , You have to forgive the person who has ordered the taking of street children for slavery purposes in the mines. You actually do have to forgive as you are involved however it is God that forgives him if he wants to be forgiven , Its the action you have to forgive .

 

You still haven't answered the question - if the people that were murdered in atrocities had not led a blameless life but an ordinary one similar to you and me and did not beg your Gods forgiveness because they hadn't done anything really bad but just general everyday living which as you have said no-one is perfect then they would not get to heaven. Why are they refused entry? Yet murder thousands and say sorry and that's OK. You really think they are sorry.

[teeny]

You still haven't answered the question - if the people that were murdered in atrocities had not led a blameless life but an ordinary one similar to you and me and did not beg your Gods forgiveness because they hadn't done anything really bad but just general everyday living which as you have said no-one is perfect then they would not get to heaven. Why are they refused entry? Yet murder thousands and say sorry and that's OK. You really think they are sorry.

 

sin is sin, If we feel we haven't been that bad as long as we confess our wrong doing we are forgiven , all wrong doing is sin , all confessed sin gains forgiveness in Gods eyes

[JFKvsNixon]

sin is sin, If we feel we haven't been that bad as long as we confess our wrong doing we are forgiven , all wrong doing is sin , all confessed sin gains forgiveness in Gods eyes

 

So we're back to the situation where one of the perpetrators of the Holocaust Himmler, who it's alleged repented his sins before he died, gets allowed into Heaven. But, someone lives a virtuous life but doesn't confess his sins to Jesus, like Gandhi, gets to spend eternity suffering in Hell.

 

That doesn't sound very just or fair does it?

[denlin]

No but then we are talking about God, and they don't have to mean they are sorry just have to ask forgiveness. nobody perfect can go there and make him look like a condescending fool LOL. If they were truly sorry after the first few thousand murders they wouldn't have carried on but no they wait until their last breath and hope that they sound sincere. On that note I've definitely said all I'm going to

Edited January 12, 2015 by denlin

[teeny]

So we're back to the situation where one of the perpetrators of the Holocaust Himmler, who it's alleged repented his sins before he died, gets allowed into Heaven. But, someone lives a virtuous life but doesn't confess his sins to Jesus, like Gandhi, gets to spend eternity suffering in Hell.

 

That doesn't sound very just or fair does it?

 

It's perfectly fair as we are told we must confess our sins , we are told we cannot say that we haven't been . It as simple as you must put petrol or diesel in your car to make it drive !

 

---------- Post added 12-01-2015 at 20:13 ----------

 

No but then we are talking about God, and they don't have to mean they are sorry just have to ask forgiveness. nobody perfect can go there and make him look like a condescending fool LOL. If they were truly sorry after the first few thousand murders they wouldn't have carried on but no they wait until their last breath and hope that they sound sincere. On that note I've definitely said all I'm going to

 

And yes we do need to be sorry and mean what we say !

[RootsBooster]

No there weren't many if any people involved in the situation

Hmm...

I saw the faith of my parents with regards to believing the impossible which happened for them , they were to old to have a child naturally , my mum having had Tb of the stomach during the second world war ! They were told by the church of England adoptions society that they were past the correct age , yet they got me from them

...sounds like there people were involved there

 

 

When my dad died when I was 5 , I saw the provision of care for myself and for my mother who was very shocked at his sudden death , We moved to Sheffield to be with family, I saw my mother restored to full health and able to cope with life , no help from other organisations as there was none when I was young.

...sounds like people were involved there

I saw provision given to me in the form of being able to attend a very costly school for 2 years , which was loving , caring and kind. My friend lost her father at the same time yet she didn't receive the care or provision that I had.( which is sad) People used to say no you wont do that or won't get that but we prayed and asked god to give us what was needed and our prayers we answered in more ways than i can ever tell you. As a child you see things very simply and you see the reality of the situations . Thats how I saw God and still do

...sounds like people were involved there, unless you're saying that God payed for your schooling?

[teeny]

Hmm...

I saw the faith of my parents with regards to believing the impossible which happened for them , they were to old to have a child naturally , my mum having had Tb of the stomach during the second world war ! They were told by the church of England adoptions society that they were past the correct age , yet they got me from them

...sounds like there people were involved there

 

 

...sounds like people were involved there

...sounds like people were involved there, unless you're saying that God payed for your schooling?

 

We never knew who paid for the schooling and people didn't know the situation !

[Guest]

Your argument is absurd. An equally likely basis is that the Matrix was actually a documentary and these objective morals are engineered into us to keep us sedate and nice to eat.

 

Objective morals can about via evolution. Humans learn how to behave to get them the best rewards. For instance, murder. I would say that the reason that we generally don't go about murdering is because we would be excluded from society if we do.

 

This exclusion lowers our chance of survival. We are pack animals and therefore it is safer for us to follow the rules of the pack.

 

The leap between objective morality and the existence of God is nonsensical and not based on any evidence. It is a huge leap to make, based on nothing with substance.

 

Why Mr Fisk, does the existence of objective morality point towards the existence of a God more than a spaghetti monster or the Matrix?

 

I've just jumped back in to this but won't be able to go over other posts- so this one is randomly selected and the reason it may overlap is to avoid having to reply to numerous others...hopefully it may shed light on the points other posters raised.

 

The moral argument is a strong argument for the existence of God (one of many theism uses- but I don't need to go in to the others if this one is still simmering).

 

Firstly, if not already mentioned, lets not confuse this with 'how we know what is right or wrong'. e.g. how knowledge is gained/accessed- those who are familiar with philosophy will know I am refering to moral epistemology- the moral argument is arguing from an ontological stance- moral ontology.

 

So it is the argument that God provides the only ontological basis for objective morality-that we have a intuitive sense of right and wrong, so where does this stem from, if not God?

 

If you take the atheist worldview, then we are nothing but matter, a by product of a lengthy evolution chain- so where does evolution allow for us to have this morals of knowing from right & wrong?

 

Why do we not judge animals (if that is what we are) when one species kills another, or one eats its own mate or offspring (as some do)- if we are animals, why are we not doing the same??

 

So atheistic evolution cannot logically explain morals. Real, objective moral right or wrong cannot exist if humans are the offspring of animals.

 

I could linger on this for a long time and this post will just go on and on- but I hope some of you get the jist.

 

I already argued that social pressure gives no support for objective morals- and the Hitler regime is a perfect example of this- the Holocaust was opposed by many even if Nazi Germany felt is was right to do it.

 

Atheists (by logic) couldn't condemn Nazi Germanyif being obbjectively wrong if the view is held that we are nothing but animals, advancing our DNA etc..

 

There has to be some real objective point to give reason as to why we know somethings are morally right and some morally wrong- you know the phrase we hear ' it was morally right to do'- and before it crops up again, no one is saying atheists cannot be moral..of course they can and some are!

 

The argument is that for them to hold objective morals then there has to be something that trancends our human subjectivity.

 

Had I the time I would gladly go through the argument, premise by premise- but I don't unfortunately...and my wife will kill me if I spend our evening time on my laptop..out of working hours!

[flamingjimmy]

I've just jumped back in to this but won't be able to go over other posts- so this one is randomly selected and the reason it may overlap is to avoid having to reply to numerous others...hopefully it may shed light on the points other posters raised.

 

The moral argument is a strong argument for the existence of God (one of many theism uses- but I don't need to go in to the others if this one is still simmering).

 

Firstly, if not already mentioned, lets not confuse this with 'how we know what is right or wrong'. e.g. how knowledge is gained/accessed- those who are familiar with philosophy will know I am refering to moral epistemology- the moral argument is arguing from an ontological stance- moral ontology.

 

So it is the argument that God provides the only ontological basis for objective morality-that we have a intuitive sense of right and wrong, so where does this stem from, if not God?

 

If you take the atheist worldview, then we are nothing but matter, a by product of a lengthy evolution chain- so where does evolution allow for us to have this morals of knowing from right & wrong?

 

Why do we not judge animals (if that is what we are) when one species kills another, or one eats its own mate or offspring (as some do)- if we are animals, why are we not doing the same??

 

So atheistic evolution cannot logically explain morals. Real, objective moral right or wrong cannot exist if humans are the offspring of animals.

 

I could linger on this for a long time and this post will just go on and on- but I hope some of you get the jist.

 

I already argued that social pressure gives no support for objective morals- and the Hitler regime is a perfect example of this- the Holocaust was opposed by many even if Nazi Germany felt is was right to do it.

 

Atheists (by logic) couldn't condemn Nazi Germanyif being obbjectively wrong if the view is held that we are nothing but animals, advancing our DNA etc..

 

There has to be some real objective point to give reason as to why we know somethings are morally right and some morally wrong- you know the phrase we hear ' it was morally right to do'- and before it crops up again, no one is saying atheists cannot be moral..of course they can and some are!

 

The argument is that for them to hold objective morals then there has to be something that trancends our human subjectivity.

 

Had I the time I would gladly go through the argument, premise by premise- but I don't unfortunately...and my wife will kill me if I spend our evening time on my laptop..out of working hours!

 

I would respond to this, but you'll just ignore it so I don't see the point anymore, I do think it's a bit rich you talking about going through a sophisticated logical argument point by point when you couldn't even construct a valid 3 point deductive argument the other day. It was like 20 words long but still you messed up!

[bulldog D]

I've just jumped back in to this but won't be able to go over other posts- so this one is randomly selected and the reason it may overlap is to avoid having to reply to numerous others...hopefully it may shed light on the points other posters raised.

 

The moral argument is a strong argument for the existence of God (one of many theism uses- but I don't need to go in to the others if this one is still simmering).

 

Firstly, if not already mentioned, lets not confuse this with 'how we know what is right or wrong'. e.g. how knowledge is gained/accessed- those who are familiar with philosophy will know I am refering to moral epistemology- the moral argument is arguing from an ontological stance- moral ontology.

 

So it is the argument that God provides the only ontological basis for objective morality-that we have a intuitive sense of right and wrong, so where does this stem from, if not God?

 

If you take the atheist worldview, then we are nothing but matter, a by product of a lengthy evolution chain- so where does evolution allow for us to have this morals of knowing from right & wrong?

 

Why do we not judge animals (if that is what we are) when one species kills another, or one eats its own mate or offspring (as some do)- if we are animals, why are we not doing the same??

 

So atheistic evolution cannot logically explain morals. Real, objective moral right or wrong cannot exist if humans are the offspring of animals.

 

I could linger on this for a long time and this post will just go on and on- but I hope some of you get the jist.

 

I already argued that social pressure gives no support for objective morals- and the Hitler regime is a perfect example of this- the Holocaust was opposed by many even if Nazi Germany felt is was right to do it.

 

Atheists (by logic) couldn't condemn Nazi Germanyif being obbjectively wrong if the view is held that we are nothing but animals, advancing our DNA etc..

 

There has to be some real objective point to give reason as to why we know somethings are morally right and some morally wrong- you know the phrase we hear ' it was morally right to do'- and before it crops up again, no one is saying atheists cannot be moral..of course they can and some are!

 

The argument is that for them to hold objective morals then there has to be something that trancends our human subjectivity.

 

Had I the time I would gladly go through the argument, premise by premise- but I don't unfortunately...and my wife will kill me if I spend our evening time on my laptop..out of working hours!

 

 

If it's any consolation Mr Fisk I get the jist and will some of you give teeny a break please as it looks like mob rule.