I wasn`t aware of any other possibilities
Submitted by A.I. Watcher on May 27 2002 16:45:40
In reply to Re: I could never love somebody that cruel submitted by Dakota on May 27 2002 15:52:03
|
So you think it's not necessary to accept the sacrifice of Jesus to go to heaven? I wasn't aware that possibility was supposed to exist. I don't understand something about omnipotence. If god is all powerful, why does he have to throw people into a hell of burning fire? If he can do anything, if there is truly no limit to his power, he would simply arrange some other alternative that wasn't so hideously painful and torturous. Shit man, he wouldn't have had to invent a system in the first place which seemingly requires the eternal conflaguration of billions of people. That's the cruel part. I daresay that's the sadistic part. You view it as a minor inconvenience. To me it's a dealbreaker. I simply could never connect the emotion of love with such a system. I could never love a being responsible for so much agony. On one hand you are telling me that humans are powerless to prevent this fate unless they accept your god and his sacrifice. Yet on the other hand you are telling me that its our fault. How? If a person is powerless to lead a holy life yet comes from a culture that does not believe in Christ, then how is fate of eternal burning his fault? How might he have prevented it? We could imagine a very loving mother of small children, for example. Let's say she's a really good person. She is loving and considerate and would never knowingly hurt somebody. But because of the system your god set up, she can't be holy enough to be in his presense and because it's the year 1380 and she lives in what is now Costa Rica, she's never even heard of the Christian faith. So god has her thrown in a lake of fire forever. What is that? Now magnify that by the billions. You want me to love the one responsible for that? I can't. I'm not telling you I won't. I'm telling you that I can't. It's just impossible. And why do you keep calling it Man's failure? You've already stated that he is incapable of being Holy enough for god. In that case, Man has not failed. He is simply man. If he does not possess the capability of being Holy then surely it is no failure of his that he is not. |
Follow ups: