The debate "God loves everybody and every single thing on the earth." was started by
November 29, 2015, 11:53 pm.
131 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 76 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Sageofthe6Paths posted 1 argument, Alex posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
pajrc1234 posted 5 arguments, Sageofthe6Paths posted 1 argument, godisjustsomethingwemade posted 1 argument, Socrates posted 3 arguments, kgb posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 13 arguments, AngryBlogger posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 6 arguments, action007man posted 1 argument, Pictobug_1 posted 2 arguments, numbskull posted 1 argument, Monster posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
bigB, Skeetc15, MrShine, DannyknowsItAll, confident, owenpaul, Glyan14, Evan22, mdthuesen, Kaunistin, Socrates, curlyyxx, Legendary_kcv, RAMD97, Tommy, ssltnv, sherry2503, Jared_Lee, sabrina, yash123, Regalgeek, brandilyn, AttackedByToast, nylia32, david365, jakestew2015, iiks, jjrocks1738, Leara, Subjecate, mini101, srbanano, Alex, katiefgrace, Alaskanboi907, Rebelis12, Sandragail02, angordon3, multishooterftw, tommy5015, beatrice, dandandan and 89 visitors agree.
Mousie, WaspToxin, ThePraxeologist, pajrc1234, Rokai, iSmuggleJews, purpledoc, godisjustsomethingwemade, waynemc15, kgb, famouslorie, omgflyingbannas, PsychDave, AlertedVision, AngryBlogger, project_mayhem, historybuff, Gandalf, Inasense, action007man, FluffiestDrop45, Pictobug_1, SocialCrusader, numbskull, jt5542002, Dctheentrepreneur, Monster, rob5998, swp16, M, Wookie, AlenaMaisel, wdz, Pablerasdh, KiwiSheepTrainer and 41 visitors disagree.
Syndrome incredisbles. When everything is loved, nothing is.
God- I love you. man- in love you too.
*suffereing. = test
God- i love you,
if you still love me. man- i love you
you get heaven
man goes to heaven and gets eternal happiness because he put up with a few bad years on earth, and continued to love God.
God- in love you. man- in love you too
*suffering. = test
* bad stuff
God- I love you, if you still love me you get heaven.
man- F*** you God, you don't deserve my love because of the suffereing you put me through.
God sees the man does not want him, so God uses Justice to send the man away into hell.
in case 2 the man thinks no hardships (tests) are required for heaven. the man thinks God should let everyone on heaven for free. I hope you see how stupid that is, and how flawed your argument. Is letting both Good and bad people into heaven Justice? nope. is God alll just? yep. so he will seperate the good and the bad. how do you tell who is good enough for heaven? by giving tests. pass is heaven, fail is hell. needing extra time is purgatory.
God-"I love you"
*every natural disaster ever*
God-"I love you"
if whoever disagreed with me could please explain why, that would be appreciated.
as I told pictobug it's a trail, job was a part of his own personal trail. his hardships were however bigger and recorded in the bible.
think of a movie where the main character has to do something. the movie has hardships the main character has to persevere though. what makes you like the main character better.
1. the character has an easy victory.
2. the character fights though hardships, overcoming obsticles to obtain victory.
I would like character 2 better and want him on my side. same with God, he wants us to persevere though hardships.
God challenges, not forces. if the love of a person to God is fake, that's not good is it? so if someone proved their love that would be good. right?
the only people God sends to be tortured are those who chose to not be with God. What is the main idea of Hell? the absence of God. so if one doesn't want to be with God, so God sends him to a place where there is no vision of God, God is doing what the person chose right? we chose heaven, or hell not God. rejecting God is choosing hell.
the family of a child with disabilities has 2 choices. 1. pray for the child and thank God for what they do have or. 2. hate God for causing the suffering, and think there is no hope.
your option 1 is correct, but option 2 can occor as well as we see in the bible with joseph. God turned bad into good. in your option 1 God lets evil happen, because with evil there is a challenge a test. If there was no evil, there would be no test to pass. God won't let us in heaven for free, so he permits hardships as a trail for us.
But if God loved job and also since God is all powerful why'd he make job suffer just to settle a challenge to which job was never a part of? last I checked you don't let people you love suffer if you can help it
God loves children with disabilities who praise him??? What if they're mentally ill and don't understand god, etc..? What about the family who have to endure heartache and worry because their innocent child has been cursed with a terrible affliction? There are three options: 1. God stands by and lets it happen. 2. God makes it happen. Or 3. There's no God and sadly these things just happen.
well if he weren't fictional he would be a psychotic. forcing people to prove their love or sending them to be tortured for all eternity. that's not a being I would want to worship. luckily he doesn't exist.
He loves children with disabilities who praise him more then a well person who praises him. praising God despite hardships is the real test, and disabled people have hardships, praising God while having a disability deserve lots of love from God.
the book of job explains this. job was a rich healthy man and he worshipped God. But he should worship God. right? he was rich and had many things to thank God for. Then the devil made a challenge that job would not praise God if he lost everything. so the devil took away everything, and job continued to praise God. praising God, when under hardships is a loss for the devil, and a win for God.
God loves us all, and that love we can return to him by doing his will, or we can reject it.
you may say next "God doesn't love the people he sends to hell" I will answer that for you if you would like.
Does that include kids born with disabilities/deformities/fatal illnesses? If so, he's got a pretty f***ed up way of showing it.
a papal bull is an official order if the church. they are fully enforced by the church.
yeah sure good loves every human being .. that's why he created hell in case you don't love him back.
If the Pope issues a papal bull he is speaking on behalf of the church.
if the pope said to torture people he was wrong, but not infallible because it was then pope not there church.
I already provided you the papal bull where the Pope told inquisitors to use torture to secure the confession of witches. this isn't something you can deny.
So the inquisition did not torture confessions out of people?
it's the other way around just because people in america conducted witchhunts, and tortured inocent people does not mean the church infallibility said to torture people.
No, I am describing the inquisition. Just because Christians elsewhere did it as well doesn't mean the church did not.
what you are describing is the torturing of inocent woman that went on in the ealier colonies of america.
So after torturing women until they would confess to anything, you believe the church was justified in burning them alive? Do you have any proof of such claims about the people being burned being more than just propaganda to justify killing them? Many were midwives and innocent people who were blamed for misfortune. There are people who are witches today. They do not worship the devil or anything like that. In many it is a belief in the spiritual power in the individual. Do you think they should be burned alive?
in witchcraft, as commonly understood, there is involved the idea of a diabolical pact or at least an appeal to the intervention of the spirits of evil. In such cases this supernatural aid is usually invoked either to compass the death of some obnoxious person, or to awaken the passion of love in those who are the objects of desire, or to call up the dead, or to bring calamity or impotence upon enemies, rivals, and fancied oppressors. This is not an exhaustive enumeration, but these represent some of the principal purposes that witchcraft has been made to serve at nearly all periods of the world's history.
In the traditional belief, not only of the dark ages, but of post-Reformation times, the witches or wizards addicted to such practices entered into a compact with Satan, abjured Christ and the Sacraments, observed "the witches' sabbath" ? performing infernal rites which often took the shape of a parody of the Mass or the offices of the Church ? paid Divine honour to the Prince of Darkness, and in return received from him preternatural powers, such as those of assuming different shapes at will, and tormenting their chosen victims, while an imp or "familiar spirit" was placed at their disposal, able and willing to perform any service that might be needed to further their nefarious purposes.
the more common witchhunts that took place in the colonies was to hint down and kill anyone who was an outcast or whom the town didn't like, and use them being a witch as a result. as the church hunted the "witches" that were devil worshipers or heroics. and the church should do something about such people.
so as the church did issue permission to hunt witches, it was quite different from the common witchhunts, so I will not concide my argument.
I already did, like 3 posts ago. In 1326 The Church authorized the Inquisition to investigate Witchcraft and to develop "demonology." This is the theory of the diabolic origin of Witchcraft.
In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal bull "Summis desiderantes" on DEC-5 which promoted the tracking down, torturing and executing of Satan worshipers.
The first one was the church ordering the investigation of witchcraft and developing the field of demonology. the second one is the papal bull giving inquistors the authority to hunt them down and kill them.
do you have any proof, or can you give me the name of the bull that said to kill witches.
I thought you said that if the church officially said to do witch hunts you would concede. A papal bull authorizing the Inquisition to persecute witches is the church officially saying to hunt down witches. Do you now concede?
and how is a papal bull not supposed to be infallible. it is an official order from the head of the church. that's just about as official church business as you can get.
and burning people to death after torturing a confession out of them because you believe they are consorting with the devil isn't a matter of faith or morals?
witches are Satan worshippers in the eyes of the church. that's what they thought witches were.
also a papal bull is not always infallible. and to be infallible it has to be on faith or morals.
They had heroics, and saten worshipers arrested, not witches.
The Church went back and forth on the idea of witch hunts. Prior to about 1200 the church didn't really believe in witches. In 1227 Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisitional Courts to arrest, try, convict and execute heretics. He meant the Cathars but it laid the groundwork for burning others too.
In 1252 Pope Innocent IV wrote a papal bull titled "Ad exstirpanda" which authorized the use of torture during inquisitional trials. This greatly increased the conviction rate.
In 1265 Pope Clement IV reaffirms the use of torture against heretics.
In 1326 The Church authorized the Inquisition to investigate Witchcraft and to develop "demonology." This is the theory of the diabolic origin of Witchcraft.
In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal bull "Summis desiderantes" on DEC-5 which promoted the tracking down, torturing and executing of Satan worshipers.
The majority of witches were burned by secular courts, not the church. But several popes issued papal bulls which allowed for the torture and killing of witches and especially heretics.
the "Church" is the Roman Catholic Church in rome.
if the church officially said to do witchhunts I will concide.
Satan will not prevail does not mean Satan will never influence the church. Prevail means to defeat. As long as the church is not entirely corrupted, he has not prevailed. Minor victories do not constitute prevailing. Otherwise you are saying the church was justified in burning innocent people alive, in which case they should still be doing so today. Do you believe the church erred inthe witch hunts?
sin is the devil prevailing over you and causing you to do wrong, without the devil there is no sin. no devil in the church so no sin. this only applies to the church, not the pope because the pope can sin. however when he pope is speaking for the church he is infallible because he is the church at that moment.
is hitler the root of all wrong, like Saten is?
I hope it was worth the wait because Jesus never actually says the church is infallible. He says the devil will not prevail over it. Hitler did not prevail over England in WW2, but that doesn't make England infallible. Neither the Bible nor the church itself existed in Jesus time.
I've been waiting for you to say "parts of the bible is wrong, so why do you trust it on infallibility"?
Jesus says the verse on infallibility, and what Jesus says is the truth, other things in the bible( old testament laws) may be wrong, but jesus isnt.
Jesus says the church is infallible. the infallible church tells us what parts of Scripture to believe.
so you can see we can know by the infallible church, made infallible by jesus, what scripture is right or wrong.
No, it is showing that the Bible, the scripture that your religion is based on, is itself flawed. Unless Joseph's fathers were a gay couple, he cannot have had two different fathers. That means the Bible is not perfect. If the text you are using to justify claiming infallibility is itself flawed, your claim is inherently flawed. If God cannot or has not preserve the accuracy of his words, you cannot claim he will preserve the infallibility of the church.
David had 2 sons. only one was in the line of Joseph. a few generations later there could have been one with two sons, Luke took one, Matthew took the other.
also you can't say it disproves infallibility because it's not a matter of faith or morals.
There is no room for "going down different lines" since lineage is traced through men. If the Bible is has a mistake, that has bearing on the entire faith, especially the idea that the church is infallible.
I am aware that this is a fairly minor detail, but the Bible is supposed to be without error since it was supposedly inspired by God.
Matthew goes from David to Joseph. David there was a lot of room for error, or simply just went down a different line.
Luke goes from Joseph to jacob. and Josephs father was heli.
So the Bible contains a contradiction? Because it really sounds like different authors claim different grandfathers.
If it was Heli, why was Jacob mentioned? If it was Jacob, why was Heli mentioned?
sorry, the first two lines are correct Heli is jesus's grandfather because Heli was Josephs father.
Matthew goes from David to jesus so jacob may have been down a different line then Luke's way of going from Joseph to david.
like I said earlier who was grandfather of who was a big deal and with little technology they invented their own complex records and Jacob could have been down a different line.
You seem to have misread that. Read the names again. Neither claim David is his grandfather
Matthew is talking about the desent of jesus from the line of David.
Luke is talking about his literal grandfather heli, so Heli is the right answer.
jesus came from the line of David, and back in biblical times ancestry was a big deal, so saying Jesus's grandfather was David ment jesus desended from king David.
OK, let's start with something easy. What was Jesus paternal grandfather's name?
Matthew 1:16 says it was Jacob
Luke 3:24 says Heli
in other past debates I've proved wrong contridictions, shall I do it again?
if you have contridictions let me here them.
oh no. there are numerous contradictions. that tends to happen when slap a book together from a bunch of stories. which even if the Bible were accurate is exactly what they did.
the bible does not have contridictions. it is confusing at times but everything you think to be a contridiction can be explained.
what commandment supporting slavery did God write in the bible?
I don't see why these idiots are quoting the Bible because the Bible in itself is contradicting because if you read the Bible you would know that Jesus and even his father destroyed villages for example like the time when God delivered Moses from Egypt in exodus and the countless other times before and after where go would kill the non believers including children and women because he thought they weren't "pure" enough. Are these sheep really saying that this same god really loves everyone and that's if even god exists at all. Slavery was common through Egypt even. Hell, even god himself wrote commandments concerning slaves and their masters. So god delivered Moses and his people for his own selfish reasonings but yet contradicts himself when he doesn't abolish slavery completely but embraces it. If God so loved everyone, having servants would have been abolished because let's be real, having no freedom sucks. if God loved everyone, he wouldn't condemn Homosexuals. if God loved everyone, he wouldn't send those to hell, especially non believers and this includes Allah as well. I could on about this forever really and list a million reasons why God don't love everyone and sure as hell doesn't help those in need.
Before you criticize someone else's faith, you may want to keep in mind that the Catholic Church not only ignores Jesus teachings but directly contravenes them when they are inconvenient.
Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
if we all interpreted the bible and seeker out our own truth, then we would not be together. the bible tells us to be together in a church.
your last sentence goes against many bible verses, and has no biblical support, yet you say to follow the bible.
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, ?All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.?
jesus says to follow all that He had commanded, not to give one a bible. Jesus also says to be baptized.
give me bible verses for God saying to follow your own path.
let me ask you this. There can only be one religion correct? if we all interpreted the bible according to our own thoughts, there would be about a billion religions.
you call yourself a Christian correct?
I don't really rope my self into a religion. religious means to do something a certain way perpetually. a lot of times in my experience following religious rules can at times have a stifling affect on personal belief. I believe in God and his son Jesus. I read the bible daily and I seek out my own understandings and truth like God advised us too.
what religion are you?
God split us up on purpose. around the earth because at one point we were u unified and spoke the same language. then the people decided they didn't need God and that they could be as great as him so they began to build the tower of Babel. The tower was supposed to reach heaven. before it's completion God confounded the language of the people and only certain groups could communicate with each other. The people split from one people to different peoples and of coarse migrated away from peoples they could not communicate with. The book of jubilees States that God (book not included in the 66 books of the king James version) sent different angles and spirits over different nations to rule but originally he chose Israel for himself. his plan was to start in Israel with building his relationship with man then he planned to expand his reach. that's why Jesus taught the 12 deciples personally and sent them out with Gospel to the nations.
no not knowing of God but living a righteous life will not send you to Hell like I said God wanted it the way it is. However the bible talks about how Christ will return once his gospel has been spread throughout the whole world. The reason he has not returned is because he still has peoples out their he wants to reveal himself too. But think about it in our day and we have stuff like this app and countless social media and translation apps. The Gospel is being saturated around the world and soon everybody will have at least heard it once in their lives.
and to say why tell people about God it's because he wants a relationship with everybody. He wants to love everybody even if everybody don't wanna love him. And to be a God of Justice you have to have a punishment for wrongs. you say how can u justify eternal domination for finite mistakes but God and ourselves are eternal. our flesh is the only finite parts of ourselves. The bible says he knew us before he stitched us together in our mothers womb. and depending on your level of research you'll find that God made all spirits on the first day of creation. we're older than we realize ( but that can be a whole other discussion) long story short nobody goes to Hell before the great judgement. in which God will recap our whole lives every second and every thought we will have to give account for. at the end if found guilty we go to Hell. and hell was not originally intended for us it was intended for lucifer and his angels.
Also, if not knowing about God won't put us in Hell, just doing bad things will, why did he tell the world about himself? And why tell them about other religions?
But if you never tell them they never risk rejecting God so it is based only on their actions, not whether they believe is Jesus or what they altered raised to believe. Their chances go down the instant you tell them about God because this adds another variable.
to reject God to have to at least know he exists. a muslem in the iran desert who has never heard of catholic church, who lives a good life can go to heaven, but has a lower chance then one who knows God, and lives a good life.
by telling people about God we are helping them get to heaven because if they convert, they can have faith and works and the more faith and works you have the better the chance at heaven.
Worshipping another God is not rejecting God?
If it possible to get into heaven by being a good person without ever having heard of God, stop telling people about God! By spreading the word of God, you are increasing the chances that people will go to Hell. Especially since they are very likely to reject God if they were brought up in a different faith.
breaking the ten commandments does not mean you go to hell. all the saints have sinned, and all sins are in someway breaking the ten commandments. so if your saying breaking the ten commandments make you go to hell then everyone is in hell.
They would not go to hell. they did not do bad works or reject God, so they would not be condemned to hell.
What about if someone is a model citizen buy worships a different God because they were brought up in a different faith or somewhere that had never heard of God? They are technically breaking one of the ten commandments (several if you include the fact that they are almost definitely working on the sabbath) so would they be condemned to Hell?
I said to go to hell you need to have negative or the opposite of faith and good works. no faith because you've never heard of God is not rejection of God. so that person has a chance at heaven and will not go to hell unless they have bad works.
Heaven- faith and good works
purgatory - little to no faith or little good works
hell - bad works or the rejection of God.
Hitchens and Dawkins both have covered this
This isn't exactly the question asked, but Say someone has never heard of God, heaven, hell, or of any religion. Then by process of not believing in god, he would send them to hell, correct? So isn't this sending an oblivious, innocent being to eternal suffering. Just because he as born at the wrong place at the wrong time?
If you loved someone, and they didn't love you back, do you honestly think you would be doing them a favor by having them tortured? If so that is a very twisted kind of love. That is the problem many people have with combining the concept of a loving God with one who condemns people to an eternity of torture. Purgatory for a period to make up for sins I can understand. Hell for a period to make up for severe sins like murder. What I cannot understand is the rationale behind hell being for eternity with no hope of redemption, even if all you did was live before Jesus was born or be born to a family that practices the wrong faith.
I think those on the disagree side are not understanding why we go to hell, or all of why we are sent to hell.
one is sent to hell for the opposite of the things needed for heaven. faith and good works. you need both for heaven. purgatory is where you only have a little bit of faith/good works.
hell is the opposite of heaven so you need. -faith or -good works to go to hell. the opposite of faith is denial on God, rejecting God. the opposite of good works is really bad works like murder. so if you have good works, but no faith, no heaven for you.
let me ask you this
Do you reject God? if so, he'll is for you because hell is the furthest thing from God and if you reject God hell is what you want. so by sending one to hell who rejects him, God is doing that person a favor.
The ten commandments were.God's original laws to the Israelites when he brought them out of Egypt. they still hold true but but when Jesus came to earth he changed the situation. I'm sure you've heard somewhere before that the price of sin is death. in the time before Christ the people to atone for sin had to slaughter and sacrifice burnt offerings to God for their wrongs. and in those days he only talked through his prophets never to people individually. The whole concept is really we severed our own connection with God originally. in the garden. ever since then if you read the old testament God wanted to try to establish a relationship with man. But we decided to worship and believe our own idols our own beliefs. we would never completely be righteous he knew like you said man would never be perfect and most would be destined for Hell. However God so loved the world He sent his only begotten son to be made in the flesh and die as a sacrifice for man. He sent his son to die in accordance with his original rule which is the price of sin is death.
He did it because like the title of the argument Is he loves everybody and everything even the animals we had to kill for the sacrifices. and he knew we would never completely turn towards him. He died so that his sacrifice would cover our sins forever and no sacrifice will be greater than his. The catch is your belief you have to believe and truly follow him. However unlike the days of the old testament u won't go to Hell if your truly sorry and u decide to follow him and his teachings. and your right if you changed on the last second of your life after living a life of evil I believe God will forgive you and you will be entitled to heaven.
a lot of times people get their understanding of God confused and believe he's is unable to be pleased and that were going to Hell he made it easier because he knew our nature and again he doesn't want anyone in Hell. But I do believe that he will reveal himself to you seek and you shall find. also in his death he made it possible for everybody to pray to him. long story short he doesn't want anybody in Hell he even made it easier to go. if you want to follow other deities that's fine God would still love you But not your choices. He lays it out plain and clear in every bible and gives us the choice to read it. How can you say he wants you in Hell when everything he teaches is Love, the right way to live and. How not to go to Hell?
Of course, I mean no offence to anyone's religion/beliefs
If God loves me, why would he send me to eternal torture? Sure, if I was a bad person there's a possibility I could deserve it, but If he was logical, wouldn't he instead try to fix me? Sending me to Hell won't get me to try to change. I don't see how eternal suffering is love.
great to know that god loves crime, drugs, murder and genocide.
you meant everything on earth right?
Nah im just joking but in all seriousness, why?
I cam make assertions about there being a difference between belief and acceptance, and that it is possible that people who could never have accepted or believed going to heaven or about how God doesn't want you to go to hell, or about hell itself. But you will believe that your interpretation is better, because that is how this conversation will go. The point of too much in the previous argument was meant for you to agree with it, not that it would invalidate my whole argument but confirm it. I didn't assert that eternal suffering would help anyone... I change my mind, I abstain from this conversation. What you're asking for in a God is what you desire, if you choose to believe that God would be hateful, every religion and belief will look like it. Somewhere my previous argument was lost in translation because while your responses were appropriate, they weren't quite correct, and likely it is a communication error on my part, mixed with bias due to previous conversations on your part. Some parts, like the too much suffering in the world, or any amount, was meant to confirm the argument and you agreed, so somewhere what I'm saying is different from what you hear. So since I will not convey properly, I must abstain
For your question, no it would not. At the end of some suffering, the good gets better. However, NEVER ending suffering would not make my life better, because there is no good at ALL at the end of this. There isn't even an "end." The fact that I say he's unfair is because, in his terms, finite crime = infinite punishment. The punishment is intended to fit the crime. If you commit $932432432987 in theft and 432898347329857329 counts of murder (impossibly), infinite punishment still is not fitting because after the criminal gets the fitting punishment for the crime, they still are 1/(infinity symbol) through it all. "we will still have a point where too much is too much" even PROVES it. Infinite punishment is TOO MUCH!
If he is really just, then he should make the punishment fit the crime. I've even heard that other deities are more just than your God, by giving Hell for the sinners for a finite time (punishment fits the crime), while then letting them out into somewhere else. Because I don't believe, he apparently wants me in Hell for all eternity, showing that he is giving an infinite punishment for something that's not even a crime at all! It's not hurting anyone, not causing harm to the environment, it's not dangerous (except for the Hell I get because he says it's immoral, even though that statement is based on no grounds), etc.
Next, "And to assume that if you should believe in God, then he should owe you something?" is asserting that I assumed that he should owe me something. I didn't assume that in any sense. If he were to owe me something, it would be the same amount of Heaven believers get for believing, repenting sins, etc. If he were to give other believers heaven than I would if I believed, I would then call him unjust. This is because I am doing just as much good as many believers do (maybe even more!), though I am getting a punishment for it.
Finally, I still need that evidence! If he wants me (or anyone who isn't going there) in Heaven, where I am told that I will be infinitely happy, instead of Hell, where there is no good at all, because it is infinite torture, then he needs to show me that he exists! Isn't it simple? An all knowing god knows that I need evidence to confirm his existence, an all powerful one is able to prove his existence, and an all loving god would WANT to.
I'm seeing you say two different things pajrc1234. It's easy to overcome the misunderstanding of if you work on Sunday, you go to hell by understanding the work system the time it was established, and that Jesus once was refuted by the Pharisees for doing miracles on that day. But here's where the heart of the matter lies, you say you want God to reveal himself, but you believe him to be unjust. What exactly is justice? Supposedly in the beginning we were given a choice, and that choice decided if we would suffer, and regardless of how hard it is it is suffering. If the suffering and pain is too much for there to be a God, it would still be the same way even if the most suffering you could experience was a papercut, because even if the suffering is lessened we will still have a point where too much is too much. And to assume that if you should believe in God, then he should owe you something? People religious and not but alike in this manner bother me, if there is a being that can create people, then why shouldn't he do as he likes? It wouldn't be unjust to undo what has been made if you had made it. After all, fairness by a person's view is extremely subjective, we just want to believe that fairness is objective. So by understanding this, if you think you aren't opposed to a God existing, you would never believe because you decided what was fair and that suffering exists. As for people being good, as not precise as the word good is, it isn't possible logically to be good without experiencing or putting yourself through something terrible. Once you have decided that you are not what causes pain and suffering and change, you are better, not perfect, but better. It sharpens a person and makes them better than if they were born innocent to anything.
So let me ask you a question, is there more to life than happiness? How about another one, If you could have chosen to live a life without any form of pain suffering or disagreement, would the resulting person be a better one than you are now?
I DO want him to reveal himself to me! That's what I've been wanting for a while! Also, you are comparing atheists to murderers and theists to the innocent, although that's a generalization! We didn't do anything wrong! Not believing is just as fine as believing! If he really loves all of us, why would he want ANYONE in Hell, why would he allow children all over the world to be starving and suffering? Why would he create someone, knowing that they will suffer for all eternity? That would be the epitome of evil. He's not even just! If you do any criminal act, even work on a Sunday (which is in the ten commandments), you go to Hell! If you plan to be enjoying heaven while millions are tortured in Hell forever, you are no less of a sociopath than the God you worship.
He will if you truly want him too. Just ask him. He loves you regardless even if u hate him and don't believe, because regardless he took time to shape and form every aspect of your life down to the moment.
Here's a thought though. He inspired me to begin this discussion something in you responded to my inspiration. God is almighty but he's also way more clever and intelligent than all human understanding put together. He can use miracles and he does sometimes but most of the time he uses & reveals himself to the less positive parts of society. Murders, thieves, non believers like I used to be. because he knows u catch more flies with honey and that a murderer will probably be more inclined to listen to another murder who changed his life compared to a innocent person who has never made a mistake. Saying that to say He inspired me a x non believer to happen chance make a argument on some random app I've never heard of and your the only person in 4 days that responded. lol How do you know this isn't him revealing himself? we as humans tend to limit God's capabilities and tend to think of him as some sandal wearing robe guy that only talks to people through the bible and in church. God loves everybody. Seek and you shall find. Ask and the door shall be opened to you.
As far as making people for hell. He made some people and yes he knew they were destined for Hell. However he didn't intend for them to go. He made them for a purpose just like u and me. He loves us so much that he allowed us to have free will. think of it like this. would u rather him just control us like video game avatars or do you appreciate the ability to make choices? U get to live life like you want all the while he makes his bible & his teachings available to u. He even sometimes sends pushy religious people on your path as advertising. But all in all we have the choice to ignore it. He will bless us and let us live our own way however like breaking laws anywhere if we decide to do what we want to do then we shouldn't be suprised about hell. + He made it easy for us to get into heaven. He sent his son to die so that no matter how wrong and worldly we live our lives if we truly confess our wrongs and believe in his son we go to heaven. He wants us to live with him it hurts him to send us to Hell but he's a God of justice and he must have a punishment for deciding to disobey him. we should not ask why he sends us to Hell but why are we so selfish
He hasn't revealed himself to me! Also doesn't change the fact that he wants people in Hell.
Well to answer that I have to answer from my faith. I believe I have a Relationship with God. I believe my life up to this point is a result of him. However I didn't always feel this way. I used to ask the same questions. mine was how can a just God who is supposed to be love and righteousness by definition send people who may have never heard of him to Hell I felt as though that was a contradiction and I had trouble believing. I guess I really didn't believe Then he started giving me personal experiences that proved to me he was real. Things in my life started manifesting in ways outside of my self or my personal influence. However that's where the foundations of my faith stem from personal experience and understanding. To answer your question you have to look at it from God's perspectives and not from our own. God created everything from plants to rocks. The bible teaches that he is everywhere and he made the world with everything in it. But he made it for himself not for us. He made everything with a purpose even grass. Especially humans who are made in his image. He had a need to be filled that's why he made us if he didn't have a purpose first he would have never made us in the first place. God loves his whole creation especially us because we're like him and like him each of us has our own individual will that may or may not line up with God. He loves us so much he allows us to do what we want even if it's opposite of him. All the while making himself and his bible available. It's the 21st century. you can't help but be bombarded with various religious quotes and such. As long as somebody reads one line of the truth even if they don't believe, if God is really omnipresent and knows every moment of our lives then nothing is by chance. and he knew that whoever he made would see what ever he wanted them too. looong a** story short. He reveals himself too everybody believer and non believer. and loves us enough to allow us to what we want.
Then why will be supposedly sending those who don't believe in him to eternal damnation and torture?