Why do we exist,GOD or BIG BANG theory?

[DélioPT]

Sri Lumpa said:

DélioPT said:

I did say that in a way i resorted to the New Testament because you said it would be better to use it to speak to player1x3 in a way he would best agree. That`s almost what i did. DIdn`t quote the NT, but used Mary that is part of the NT.

Almost but no cigar.

Teaching kids is different because, given their young age and inability to comprehend things, you do make them do things that only later they will understand. The situation we are speaking is different. They, most of them at least, could comprehend. But given that their hearts were hard i understood it as they having clouded hearts to God`s way. And God knew this. He knew that somehow, they wouldn`t or couldn`t follow His ways even if He revealed them. That immorality was actually against Himself and His pure heart.
If i might add something, one with a hard heart and looking at some descriptions of the reactions of the people during Moses time - worshipping that false idol - might be a good indication of what Jesus meant by hard heart, that being, easily corrupted. I also believe that God was strict and even went against His will for the sake of those same people.

If that was the case then Jesus should have repudiated it instead of claiming that he was fulfilling it. Why would he fulfill a law that goes against god and his pure heart?

This is exactly where we disagree. Heaven or hell is not just a question of morality, or, being good or bad.
Heaven and hell are much more than a moral system. 

We are not disagreeing on it being more than a moral system, we are agreein on it but we are disagreeing on it being moral. It is a case where the sum of the part is less than one of the parts themselves. But I will stop arguing with you on this point as we are going in circle. To paraphrase:

You - Heaven is more than just moral

Me - That is why it is not about rewarding morals.

You - Heaven is more than just about moral.

 

Me - That is why it is not about rewarding morals.

...

 

Any sin is the same as rejecting God in one way or the other and attribtuing those 3 qualities to someone else, to something else or even to themselves.

So you equate morality with god. In that case let me ask you if you think what the 9/11 terrorists did could possibly be seen as moral? If you really believe that then you cannot unequivocally say that their action are immoral as there is the possibility that there belief is right and that their god exist and told them to do it, which, in your worldview, would make their actions moral as they would then originate from god.

My view is that even if they are believing in the right god and that god told them to do these acts the these are still immoral acts regardless of who told them to do it. When Joshua invaded Jericho it was an immoral act of unprovoked agression even though god told him to do it.

If you start with the hypothesis that somebody defines morality and that his acts are always moral then no matter how outrageously immoral those act would be considered had anybody else done them then they would be seen as moral. If you apply the same moral standard to everyone, god included, then you realise that god is not the highly moral being he claims to be so rejecting him cannot be immoral.

How do you know that spreading the word of God would be like opening the door to damnation? What if he was a bad person and it actually was the word of God that saved him?

But if he was good and did not believe then you condemned him. The only safe thing to do is to teach the moral part of the bible without the supernatural part as if they are already moral then they do not risk being damned for having heard but being unconvinced and if they are immoral but realise the morality of the teaching then they can become moral and thus be saved by their newfound morality without the risk of losing said salvation if they find the precepts moral but are not convinced by the supernatural parts.

Jesus didn`t come for those who are good and love God, He come for those who need His guidance. That`s why it`s so important to spread His word either to save them or to in a broad way, help the rest in their lives.

And if you only spread the morality principles without spreading the supernatural parts you can still save them without putting them at risk. If your assertions are right it is the logical way to proceed.

Fair enough! :D People will make their own judgment on what was said.

There`s more to the passage you gave me: Mattew 17:19 and probably a better explanation here. He didn´t come to copy them to to actually fulfil God`s visions on the Law (hence the change), God`s ways and what was said about Himself.

I did not see it as you agreing with it being more than a moral system. So yes, it`s not just about rewarding morality. That`s why i don`t equate morality with God, unless you are implying that i see God as moral or morality, in that case yes.
I don`t see that terrorist attack as moral or any other kind of act of violence. As you know, the God is the same and that God does not allow for people to take their own lives - as much as they think, at least according to someone who posted on the forum regarding that issue.
It seems to me that you are falling a bit on relativism. If i understood you correctly, you are saying that A makes morals, therefore to him it`s always moral and that if person B does the same than rejecting A wouldn`t be immoral but actually moral - according to morals of person B himself.
You are still seeing this through the eyes of morality. Rejecting God isn`t, at least to me, immoral or moral, it`s, since i believe it`s more tham morals, a sin. Morals don`t encompass everything, so rejecting God can`t be seen through morality - or lack of it.
But i get your point, in general, is, why should God be seen as the truth, path and life and not something else? I can`t answer you this without saying: it`s all about faith.
Rationally everything might seem the same or worthy of the same value, but in the end, reason can`t be the one to decide. Your heart will be the one that will guide you, hopefully on the right track.

Even if he was good, i didn`t condemn him as i also didn´t save him. Being presented with a way happens every day. Should i not let him learn about the world for the sake of not risking anything?
Teaching one part and not the rest would already be a sin. More, the word of God is not just about salvation. There´s a lot more than just preparing oneself for salvation. What Jesus taught us was more than that and that`s reason alone to speak of God.
When a missionaire talks of God he isn`t only concerned about salvation.