If Jesus died to forgive us, then why is there a Hell?

Dys,

Was this meant as honest commentary or a sarcastic barb?

These are your words from another thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I pony what mama might have been intending as that old Moral Lesson. Me believing in moral absolutes, I pony that there aren't many good droogs in this litso at all, no! In truth the Government is the Lewdie as much as old Dys is. So as the citizenry ponys its own morality, are we to take away "Boys will be boys!" from this? Tolchock that, O my Brothers! Lewdies are lewdies! Like love him or like hate him, Dys prevails throughout so much of his own Malchick days and beyond, so one, if morally inclined might set his or her glazzies on what Moral Lesson Mama like promises us, Brothers! No morality is easy, I pony, so the moralistic weight of the modern world might just be on thy pletchoes, Brothers! So be it.

Momma Angel wrote:

Dys,

Was this meant as honest commentary or a sarcastic barb?

These are your words from another thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I pony what mama might have been intending as that old Moral Lesson. Me believing in moral absolutes, I pony that there aren't many good droogs in this litso at all, no! In truth the Government is the Lewdie as much as old Dys is. So as the citizenry ponys its own morality, are we to take away "Boys will be boys!" from this? Tolchock that, O my Brothers! Lewdies are lewdies! Like love him or like hate him, Dys prevails throughout so much of his own Malchick days and beyond, so one, if morally inclined might set his or her glazzies on what Moral Lesson Mama like promises us, Brothers! No morality is easy, I pony, so the moralistic weight of the modern world might just be on thy pletchoes, Brothers! So be it.

Ok MA lets start with that post which you find so objectionable. it is a parody on a book that has at the heart of it a severe criticism of the "liberal agenda" in western civilization. The book by Anthony Burgess is regarded as a masterpiece of modern writing titled "A Colockwork Orange." the other post I made preceeding this one that you also found objectionable was open criticism of the Plato/Aristotle tradition. You managed to personalize both as being directed at you (egoist?) Yes, both posts were quite sarcastic and directed at (1) Plato/Aristotle (2) Inherent failures of the "liberal agenda". What streated off today was my response to Tico when he asked me a question and I attempted a sincere and honest answer. Again, he asked me the question and I attempt a honest answer. For that I got back the usual sarcasm reather than a simple "I don't agree." Now MA, you can push this as far as you are so inclined but I see no resolution other than me admitting that I often use sarcasm. However in this instance I stated that I was willing to forgo such sarcasm and attempt a honest response. I shall not make that same mistake again especially re you and Tico.

God is no more obligated to look into every possible future event than you are obligated to read the last chapter of the whodunit.

BTW, you never answered my question about whether you are a fan of the Phantom (of the opera)

neologist wrote:

God is no more obligated to look into every possible future event than you are obligated to read the last chapter of the whodunit.

BTW, you never answered my question about whether you are a fan of the Phantom (of the opera)

So god knows all and sees all just whenever it strikes his fancy. OK. Sure.

Phantom of the Opera? Seen the old movie and some of the remakes, but I wouldn't use the word fan. Why?
P

You god...for no apparent reason...allows Satan...the most evil tempter ever to function in the world...to have access to these two naive people...for no other reason than to tempt them into eating the fruit of that particular tree that is there for no reason other than to be a temptation.

And you...are trying to blame Satan...and Adam and Eve...rather than the cartoon god! . .

The challenge still holds.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You god...for no apparent reason...allows Satan...the most evil tempter ever to function in the world...to have access to these two naive people...for no other reason than to tempt them into eating the fruit of that particular tree that is there for no reason other than to be a temptation.

And you...are trying to blame Satan...and Adam and Eve...rather than the cartoon god! . .

The challenge still holds.

You assume, among other things, that Satan had sinned before he first tempted Eve or that God foreknew Satan would rebel. Where is the support for that proposition?

Your challenge is a straw man, Frank. I've already told you that. All of the awful things you accuse God of doing would never have developed had it not been for the rebellion in Eden.

You know the book of Genesis also claims that God made man in his image. What father do you know of who deliberately gives his children rules they cannot possibly obey and punishes them so severely for their failure?

Well I know you may deny that claim, but doesn't that affect the strength of your other asseverations about the book of genesis?

Jesus came so that we all MIGHT be saved. Just Him being here doesn't make us saved and going to church doesn't make you saved. We still have the choice to accept or reject Him. If you accept you will eternally with Him. If you reject Him you will live eternally in Hell. With weeping and gnashing of teeth!