God must be a Universalist and not lose any souls if he is moral and God.
God must be a Universalist and not lose any souls if he is moral and God.
Be it nature or God that does the creating, we have all been created for the best possible end. This is irrefutable.
Given that God can cure any condition, even evil in a soul, the moral position God would take is to cure the soul, --- not kill it or send it to hell for useless torture.
God would do his will whatever it took, and save all souls as shown in this quote.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
If your God does any less and loses any souls, then he is not a moral God as he did not create his souls for their best possible end.
A moral God must be a Universalist. If he is not, then he is not a true and moral God.
That would also mean that what Christians are following is not a moral God as he has not planned for the best possible end to the souls he creates.
If you think the Christian God moral then give an argument that shows that it is more moral to kill than to cure an afflicted soul.
I do not think anyone can but I hope for a surprise.
Regards
DL
Comments229
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
You do not tell God what God is or must be.
God spared your miserable existence, so you are what He wants you to be.
God spared your miserable existence, so you are what He wants you to be.
I follow scriptures that tell me to test all things.
I do while you do not.
Put your head back up your God's ass it must be cold out here for you.
The church must have really hurt you.
Regards
DL
I do while you do not.
Put your head back up your God's ass it must be cold out here for you.
The church must have really hurt you.
Regards
DL
If you truely loved someone, would you force them to love you back? No. If someone didn't want to love God, would they WANT to be in Heaven...where you are joined to God in a more profound way than you imagine here on earth? Would God force that on someone when they don't want to be with Him? If someone didn't love God, it wouldn't be to far fetched to say that Heaven would be painful for such a soul!
So, in a way that is beyond our understanding, Hell is actually a result of His love. He respects our choice to be departed from Him...but seeing as He's the creator and source of all true good and pleasure, there will be none to have in Hell. He created all good things: stars, mountains, laughter, sound...In regecting Him, you've *regected the SOURCE of these good things. He will not be in Hell so not a single spark of relief or pleasure will be felt there. For a soul who loves God, they've accepted the very source of all good. Mountains are beautiful in themselves. The one who invented them must be VERY beautiful. A beautiful work of art usually indicates a beautiful artist, right?
The pleasures of the world are good...but they don't last. If that becomes your end, you won't last either. If a soul takes pleasure in the source of all these good things, they will recieve the best of the best for all eternity!
*Note: I said "regected"... in other words, by their own will. There may still be hope for those who, by no fault of their own, have never heard of God.
I hope this all makes sence '^^
So, in a way that is beyond our understanding, Hell is actually a result of His love. He respects our choice to be departed from Him...but seeing as He's the creator and source of all true good and pleasure, there will be none to have in Hell. He created all good things: stars, mountains, laughter, sound...In regecting Him, you've *regected the SOURCE of these good things. He will not be in Hell so not a single spark of relief or pleasure will be felt there. For a soul who loves God, they've accepted the very source of all good. Mountains are beautiful in themselves. The one who invented them must be VERY beautiful. A beautiful work of art usually indicates a beautiful artist, right?
The pleasures of the world are good...but they don't last. If that becomes your end, you won't last either. If a soul takes pleasure in the source of all these good things, they will recieve the best of the best for all eternity!
*Note: I said "regected"... in other words, by their own will. There may still be hope for those who, by no fault of their own, have never heard of God.
I hope this all makes sence '^^
Absolutely. You show just how big a prick your God is.
If someone rejected your love, would you also wish them and send them to eternal torture or death?
Are you as big of a prick as your God?
Regards
DL
If someone rejected your love, would you also wish them and send them to eternal torture or death?
Are you as big of a prick as your God?
Regards
DL
If someone regects the sun and thinks he can live without the sun's light and heat, is it the sun's fault that the person freezes to death? The person does this to himself.
God doesn't wish or send anyone to eternal damnation. They do it to themselves. If I had a friend who wanted to commit suicide, for an example, I'd do all in my power to stop them from doing it...but, in the end, if they don't listen to me and go through with it anyways, it's not on my conscience. It's purely their own doing.
You obviously don't want to have any level of a mature conversation on the matter so, good day.
God doesn't wish or send anyone to eternal damnation. They do it to themselves. If I had a friend who wanted to commit suicide, for an example, I'd do all in my power to stop them from doing it...but, in the end, if they don't listen to me and go through with it anyways, it's not on my conscience. It's purely their own doing.
You obviously don't want to have any level of a mature conversation on the matter so, good day.
You are the fool who thinks your God's hate is love.
Mature you are not.
Regards
DL
Mature you are not.
Regards
DL
So God bears all the responsibility for what we do with the gifts we were given? If a person gives another a hammer to build something good, and instead uses it to kill their neighbor, does that make the giver liable in your view as well?
Talk about starting from a premise rooted in entitlement.
If souls are lost they are not lost for lack of God trying hard enough not to lose them.
Talk about starting from a premise rooted in entitlement.
If souls are lost they are not lost for lack of God trying hard enough not to lose them.
If your God give a man a hammer knowing in advance, as he know all things, that he will use it to kill, is he culpable for the murder. Yes he is.
Especially when he created that man's murderous nature.
If I give a man a gift, I cannot know what he will do with it and I would not be culpable.
See the difference?
Or have you developed an immoral double standard where you forgive your God while condemning men for the same act?
Your answer will tell me your morals.
Regards
DL
Especially when he created that man's murderous nature.
If I give a man a gift, I cannot know what he will do with it and I would not be culpable.
See the difference?
Or have you developed an immoral double standard where you forgive your God while condemning men for the same act?
Your answer will tell me your morals.
Regards
DL
The flaw in any product is ultimately the fault of it's creator.
Ignoring of course the link between having been given one's own agency and all that other, clearly meaningless stuff, yeah, then you'd be right.
You are not a mere product, or a robot like the other commenter has said. You have your own agency. God is no more liable for your behavior than your parents are for their part in you being here.
You are not a mere product, or a robot like the other commenter has said. You have your own agency. God is no more liable for your behavior than your parents are for their part in you being here.
The biblical origin of man is a golem made from earth and the "breath of life". A parent is indeed at least partially for their children based on how they raised them. Personal agency extends for only so far. I cannot fly like a bird or breath water or even choose my profession as I wish due to natural limitations. The option of sin could be one such limitation that god could instill in us and we need not worry of hell and maintain our personal agency.
An omniscient god would know that, an omnipotent god could do that and an omnibenevolent god would do it.
Their are no excuses for said such god not to.
An omniscient god would know that, an omnipotent god could do that and an omnibenevolent god would do it.
Their are no excuses for said such god not to.
While circumstances (like bad parenting) influence our choices, we always have the agency to override it. They're responsible for the harm they cause to the progeny directly and no further (provided the progeny is already past the age of reason). Otherwise we could just keep back-blaming all of our ancestors for being horrible, and never have to take responsibility for ourselves. Not everyone who grows up knowing the bad side of life ends up choosing to repeat the same cycle. Too many exceptions to that rule to discount it. No. The choice exists, therefore culpability is limited to that which we do ourselves to others.
Then of course we have the armchair quaterbacking of how an omniscient God should have done things. Because the people who always fall back on this have so much experience in the matter.
There is no way a creation of limited perceptions is ever going to be in a position to second-guess a being that is, by definition, omniscient and omnipotent. Trying to do so in an attempt to make a serious point, is to talk waaaay outside your pay grade, so to speak. I include myself in that group, but then I'm not trying to say that "God should have just done "X", as long as we're acknowledging God to be omniscient and omnipotent. We aren't capable of sharing the perspective of such a being, so trying to speak as if we could is no better than an ant telling you how the perfect home should be built.
It's just plain hubris of the highest order.
Then of course we have the armchair quaterbacking of how an omniscient God should have done things. Because the people who always fall back on this have so much experience in the matter.
There is no way a creation of limited perceptions is ever going to be in a position to second-guess a being that is, by definition, omniscient and omnipotent. Trying to do so in an attempt to make a serious point, is to talk waaaay outside your pay grade, so to speak. I include myself in that group, but then I'm not trying to say that "God should have just done "X", as long as we're acknowledging God to be omniscient and omnipotent. We aren't capable of sharing the perspective of such a being, so trying to speak as if we could is no better than an ant telling you how the perfect home should be built.
It's just plain hubris of the highest order.
There is no way a creation of limited perceptions is ever going to be in a position to second-guess a being that is, by definition, omniscient and omnipotent.
Actually there is given the description of said deity. The very notion of omniscience and omnipotence means that god would know the most efficient and positive means of establishing existence and is capable of creating it. Even with my finite understanding know and that as such a being it would be possible otherwise the being is not one or the other or even both. Or the god in question could be both but not care or is outright malevolent or and what is the most likely of answers non existent.
Actually there is given the description of said deity. The very notion of omniscience and omnipotence means that god would know the most efficient and positive means of establishing existence and is capable of creating it. Even with my finite understanding know and that as such a being it would be possible otherwise the being is not one or the other or even both. Or the god in question could be both but not care or is outright malevolent or and what is the most likely of answers non existent.
"The very notion of omniscience and omnipotence means that god would know the most efficient and positive means of establishing existence and is capable of creating it."
You still would need to know what the perfect means of establishing existence is as compared to every other possible expression. Nobody has that kind of understanding. Nobody can have "enough" in those terms.
You have no such basis for any kind of comparison. It's the same key flaw in your prior comments, just reiterated and compounded. You're acting under the delusion that you 'have enough' perspective and understanding. Really? Compared to what? "Enough" in these matters seems to mean "enough to satisfy myself and my own logic".
You still would need to know what the perfect means of establishing existence is as compared to every other possible expression. Nobody has that kind of understanding. Nobody can have "enough" in those terms.
You have no such basis for any kind of comparison. It's the same key flaw in your prior comments, just reiterated and compounded. You're acting under the delusion that you 'have enough' perspective and understanding. Really? Compared to what? "Enough" in these matters seems to mean "enough to satisfy myself and my own logic".
View all replies
Here is a better analogy: If a person builds a robot programed to do what he wants it to, and then that robot kills someone, then you bet that person is liable.
No, that person would not the liability would be on the robot since it has the ability to learn and understand. Why would the person be responsible for something that can think for itself and isn't a dog and or animal.
So, the inferior analogy likens your free will to a tool and a gift, and the superior one likens it to being saddled with flawed programming in a bad Asimov ripoff. Is that how you view your own free will?
Perhaps you're subconsciously expressing a latent desire to be reborn as a species that just acted on more linear instinct?
Either way, it's not a better analogy. The very fact that you have your own free will is what makes culpability one's own and not the one who made you. Otherwise why not also implicate the parents of the person for their part in your creation? We don't prosecute parents for actions for illegal actions their children engage in as adults (unless they're also materially involved in the crime by their own individual choices and actions).
Perhaps you're subconsciously expressing a latent desire to be reborn as a species that just acted on more linear instinct?
Either way, it's not a better analogy. The very fact that you have your own free will is what makes culpability one's own and not the one who made you. Otherwise why not also implicate the parents of the person for their part in your creation? We don't prosecute parents for actions for illegal actions their children engage in as adults (unless they're also materially involved in the crime by their own individual choices and actions).
No, I'm expressing my very not-latent desire for people to stop blaming humans when things go wrong, but giving god credit when something goes right. You can't have it both ways.
You can, if one acknowledges that God isn't 'just like us' in all ways. People have this tendency to make God as just another entity like us. Like the good buddy down the street. I don't think it's quite so simple as that. At some point, it has to be acknowledged that we are not, and it's fruitless to treat the conversation as if it was.
Fair enough, I guess I shouldn't be trying to be applying logic to mythological figures anyways 
Parting dismissive jab duly noted.
View all replies
Woooooowwwwww. This is really kind of hilarious XD and pathetic XD
Two words for you. Just two, that you failed to have understood so far.
Free will.
God gave us the power of choice. If he took sin away from us after we chose it, we would be robots. God is above all, a holy God. He cannot be in the presence of sin and humanity chose sin. If God had not given us choice we would be robots. Incapable of the love God made us to feel. God gave us the power of choice so we could love. And because of this we allowed evil into the world.
Two words for you. Just two, that you failed to have understood so far.
Free will.
God gave us the power of choice. If he took sin away from us after we chose it, we would be robots. God is above all, a holy God. He cannot be in the presence of sin and humanity chose sin. If God had not given us choice we would be robots. Incapable of the love God made us to feel. God gave us the power of choice so we could love. And because of this we allowed evil into the world.
If God could not bee around sin, the the whole Job story is a lie. Right?
If you can look at these images and think your God created them then you are one brainwashed dude.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw…
Compare that to this.
Tell me, are those images perfect works from your God?
Regards
DL
If you can look at these images and think your God created them then you are one brainwashed dude.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw…
Compare that to this.
Matthew 7:17
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Matthew 12:33
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
Christians would have us think that God, the good tree, --- produced corrupt fruit.
If you believe scriptures that say God is perfect that is.
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect:
Tell me, are those images perfect works from your God?
Regards
DL
This whole message literally made no sense.