Phat, you make it pretty much impossible for anyone to have a rational discussion with you...
Lets go through this hypothetical slowly.
You are not offering any "hypotheticals" - you are merely asking jar to answer your questions by pretending you are right. How is that conducive to rational discussion??
Here's an example of a "hypothetical"
There is a man who has spent his entire life caring for the sick, feeding the poor, and giving to those less fortunate. He treats his wife with love and respect and raises his children to be loving caring people. He does not hoard money or wealth, but is very generous - giving his wealth away to help others. He always puts other's needs before his own and sacrifices his own wants to make sure that other's needs are met. However, this man lives in a country where his god is not the god of the Bible. He has never heard of Jesus, let alone believed in him and accepted him as his savior.
There is another man who was raised in the church, accepted Christ as a child and then re-dedicated his life when he was a young man. He attends church regularly, reads his Bible daily and can cite numerous Bible verses by heart. He gives his 10% tithe regularly, serves on the church board, participates in evangelical outreach and goes on mission trips annually to build churches. He has never smoked or drank alcohol, had premarital sex, used the Lord's name in vain. He opposes abortion and homosexuality and believes in a literal six-day creation. However, he is rude and dismissive, especially to those he views as less worthy than himself. At church board meetings he is pushy and argues vigorously for his own agenda. He considers the 10% he pays to the church to be his entire obligation for charity and holds the remainder of his wealth with a tight fist, saving up considerable wealth for himself. He is distant and neglectful to his wife and children, preferring to either work or spend his time serving at the church. His children are uncertain if their father even loves them. He also supported Trump because of his "America first", anti-immigrant and pro-corporation policies.
Now... according to church dogma, salvation is by grace, not by works and therefore the first man is condemned to hell and the second man is to be welcomed into heaven.
Explain why this is "good" and how God is justified for creating this system.
Should God send people to hell simply because they were born in a place that was not Christian?
Explain why the second man, who had accepted Christ as his savior and did all the expected "Christian" behaviors, did not change his heart and did not show love and mercy to his fellow humans. Is God incapable of changing human hearts or is our treatment of others irrelevant to salvation?
So Phat... this is an example of how "hypotheticals" work. The purpose of a "hypothetical" is to force the reader to think beyond the traditional view point. So in this case, the traditional viewpoint is that God is good and salvation is by grace alone. So the "hypotheticals" I present here force you to re-think those traditional views. In these scenarios, can God be good if salvation is by grace alone? Could the traditional viewpoint be wrong?
First, explain to me why God should not have foreknowledge? (Remember...according to *your* hypothetical, ALL Gods are made-up. )
How is this a "hypothetical" ? If God is "made-up" then him having foreknowledge would also be "made-up". IF jar believes all gods to be made up, how could he possible explain why God should not have foreknowledge? You are merely saying "Pretend God is real and he has the qualities I have described. Why would he not have those qualities?" How could anyone answer that rationally?
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
™ Version 4.2
