If Christ died on the cross for all of humanity

ah  yes

1) You're saying that it is impossible for words to be a cause in which the effect is harmful to another?

2 [& 3] ) You are being contradictory. You're pretty much saying, if an All-Good/Kind/Just/Powerful/Knowledgeable entity exists, then it is not All-Good/Kind/Just/Powerful/Knowledgeable, etc. You needed to fix your premise.

But of course, I know what you are trying to say. And the arguments that you are making are quite elementary. The "God is a Murderer" clause, the "Punishing people for not believing clause". Is that it? Is that why your non-Christian? Because you couldn't figure out why those clauses are erroneous on your own? Fine then, we'll go over them together.

God is a Murderer Argument
People die because of God's will, therefore God is a murderer. Okay. So what

thats how you were conceived...

Well, looks like I accidentally pressed "submit". Let me continue what I was saying:

God is a Murderer Argument
People die because of God's will. Therefore God is a murderer. Okay. So what is the key word here? "Murder". What does that mean?:

mur·der

Now, can you show that God is doing this? Until you can prove that God is a "murderer", we can't really go forward. A more accurate step is to simply call God a "killer" (one who kills). If that's what you mean, then we can say God kills people.

But what would be the conclusion of such a premise? There is no real way to tell. The argument is very shaky, filled with too many implicit notions, and a very unclear message. Are you saying, "therefore God does not exist?". Are you saying "anyone who kills someone is therefore evil"? Are you equating God with humanity and then subjecting him to such a kind of law? Are you calling God objectively evil, without stating the grounds for objective morality? The questions could go on.

This is not a very intelligent argument at all, and leads to no explicit conclusion. Let's look at the second argument.

God Punishes People for not Believing
This is just plain untrue. It's a gross misunderstanding of what Christianity is. It's like you've never heard of Christianity before. In fact, I'm wondering how you came to this argument? But I've heard it so many times (from teenage/young adult 'new atheists') that I'm wondering if people are indoctrinated into crafting horrible straw man and calling it the enemy.

Nevermind that. This is just a false premise. God does not punish people for not-believing. People are rendered according to their own works. But Heaven is only for perfect entities. We are not perfect. But the Christ is like, "I'll let you get in, just believe in me keep my commandments, of which the greatest is love". And those who believe in the Christ will enter through the narrow gate into heaven. Those who reject the Christ's offer will try and go through the broad way, and be rejected because they aren't perfect.

I can explain it in further detail if you want.

The problem is that your assumption is false. Life is not some kind of test. What kind of religion are you believing in? That sounds like nonsense. Unlike that, Christianity is reality: life is life. You live it. Life isn't some test at all. Life is what you make of it. Because your assumption is false, your question becomes out of place.

Now, just to clarify, there is a time where everything will be judged, but you won't be judged on your life, you'd be judged on you, yourself. Everyone is judged on the content of their very being, their very hearts. You needn't live a few seconds or a thousand years, you needn't be a genius or mentally retarded, you needn't have grown up in a Church or in a cave in the Antarctic Tundra, all that matters is you, yourself.

Anyway, you're question is also a little confusing to me. Are you saying that babies cannot believe in God? Or that a mentally deficient person could not have faith? Or that people who have never heard of God could not come to the conclusion on their own?

Kittykatz286,

SYSTEM,

KittyKatz,

Don't get so emotional. Emotions have no place in logical discussion. (I assume your caps signify a frustration in communication). I do not care what you were told. All that matters is what is true. Keep your mind focused on truth as we go forward. We'll take each concern one at a time, to get you out of the unintelligent juvenile nonsense and into rational reasoning, logical coherency, and plain truth.

First things first. God does not condemn people to Hell for renouncing Him. People are condemned to Hell due to sinfulness (imperfection). People only get into heaven due to God's grace. One can literally believe in God and yet still be rejected. Let me provide for you an example:

The Gospel According to Matthew, 7:21-23 NKJV
²¹ “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ²² Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ ²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I'm sorry, but we have to take this slow. You have displayed to all the posters here that you don't even know what Christianity is. So if you are with me, we can continue. If not, tell me what you're not getting.

KittyKatz,

KittyKatz,

archsage,

If god was perfect, babies wouldn't die.

How does God's perfection having anything to do with babies dying?

I can't deal with you people. You nitpick at every word I don't choose perfectly. If you're in a debate, and a person clearly intends to say one thing, but the exact word choice might have a minute difference from the perfect word, do you really go attacking the word choice? and completely digress from the argument? Fuck you guys. Seriously. It's the only way you can justify your fantasy bullshit, by dancing around the issue and never addressing it because I don't know the right word to use to describe whatever it is you christians call blasphemy.

How do you know this?

Everything in the Bible is up for debate

Saints VS Cardinals.   Which team has God on their side today?   Think I'll take the points and pray to a false prophet.

KittyKat,

In logic, the words use define the very premise of an argument. If you are unable to use words to precisely state what exactly you mean, then that's your problem. In order for us to understand exactly what you mean, and then logically understand them in a coherent manner, the words you use must be exact. Thus is the nature of logic -- it's much more intellectually demanding than the conversational language of laymen.

Normally I wouldn't mind regular conversation, but the problem with regular conversation is that each sentence holds certain premises and logical statements both explicitly stated and implicitly referenced. In a logical argument, all premises need to be displayed out front to be examined for rational coherency. Of course, if you have a problem with reasonable discussion at this level you are by no means forced to participate.

Anyway, interestingly enough, you previously had two statements. It'd be no good to ignore them, each of your concerns warrants a response, whether you are willing to actually participate in thinking about the answers or not:

1. If god was perfect, babies wouldn't die.
2. And once again you contradict yourself. Renouncing god is unforgivable but murder is not? That's ridiculous.

I don't understand the logical argument behind (1). Could you provide it please? As for (2), you are still mistaken. First of all, there is no 'contradiction' in 2. In logic, contradiction is holding both A and not-A together as equal. There is no contradiction there. Secondly, and most importantly, it is not actions that are forgivable/unforgivable. It is people. In that, God does not forgive you killing someone. God forgives you. There's an innate difference there. Hopefully you get it, and I don't need to explain something so elementary in excessive detail.

1. What I'm saying is if god was perfect, a lot of things in the world would be different. A lot of terrible things wouldn't happen. I was using babies dying as an example, that's all.