Perry
It would be good news if your god showed up. A lesser god "punishes", a more powerful god would heal. If god exists in some manner that you describe, I doubt very seriously that punishment is in order. Frankly, (using analogies common in the Christian world) if a child misbehaves in the absence of a parent, the parent is held responsible. From a theistic point of view (which I do not subscribe to) god has not been around, leaving man to his devices. HE is the one responsible, a sin of omision.
Obviously, I do not subscribe to your beliefs Perry. And my taking things from a theistic point of view was for your benefit, as you for whatever reason, do not seem to want to argue this from a non theistic point of view. Thus, I speak of god for the sake of discussion, not because I believe. Remember, you said:
Note: These are simple questions. You have already assummed the existence of God for this discussion. (italics mine)
You then take my premised answers and run with it and say
I'm glad we agree that God has the right to punish wrongdoers. The bible agrees with your order of events as well.
With respect, we do not agree. And you merely subscribe to an interpretation of the bible's "order of events". Other Christians do not agree with you. Have you been asking me questions just to look for something we "agree" on?
Allow me please, to offer a critique of your methodology when it comes to arguing your position.
I have written several times about a peculiar habit the Governing Body engages in. Which is, they do not entertain questions that they do not raise. The only questions they answer are the ones they raise. They have an agenda. Outside questions regarding their positions and interpretations do not serve the interests of their agenda.
As you are well aware, JW's are taught when in conversation with householders to "flip" conversations by asking questions, which serves to change the subject. The reason of course is simple: They aren't their for a 2 way conversation, but to preach.
I find the same pattern with you. I do not in any way question your motives. Sincerity though is a poor litmus test for truth and fact.
You have frequently taken the "devils advocate" role, raising questions in response to questions posed to you. If you doubt this, I will simply allow any reader to review this thread, and I will let that stand.
I don't wish to charecterize why you do this, I am simply saying that this method you use shares much in common with the aggressive indoctrination techniques championed by JW's.
Why is this relevant? Because like JW's, it is my view that instead of offering an intellectually honest account for your beliefs, including an acknowledgment of what you believe as opposed to what you can prove (hellfire being a big one) you choose to try to flip the conversation to try to get those who don't believe you on the defensive, thus sparing you the need to quantify your beliefs.
I have spend much of this thread answering your questions. The quotes I provide in this response from you prove that you are more then willing to cherry pick responses to support your beliefs.
I have much respect for theists who are willing to acknowledge that there are a few things they must take on faith, because they can't prove them. I also appreciate an acknowledgement from these theists that they understand why others can't feel as they do.
In another thread, you spoke of a very personal experience you claim with your god. At best, that must be good enough for you. Nonetheless, you can't transfer what that did for you to others. If god did that for you, then only god can do that for someone else. At best, you can only make theological arguements. While I respect your beliefs, I cannot be persuaded simply because you tell me so.
This thread discussed at length your views of punishment from god. As I understand it, your basic arguement is that god does indeed have the right to punish to enforce his laws and standards. I disagree with you for all the reasons I have written previously.
