Questions for Christians

Hello! Again, I'm sorry for forfeiting the last round. As I stated in the comments, my computer stopped working yesterday. To the rebuttals: 1) 'I may know it is illegal in the U.S. to murder someone, but if I hear that there is a murderer in my apartment building, does that give me the right to go and kill him? I mean, he will get the death penalty anyways, right? No. It is not our place to judge that, regardless of if we know the law.' You are avoiding the answer! My question wasn't if it's right to kill people who are not Christians. To use your example, it's like knowing it is illegal in the U.S. to murder someone, and then hearing about a person who killed a person, and saying: He will go to jail and he deserves to be in jail. Yes, you are right. I knew the answer before I asked the question, but the question wasn't a request for information. I asked 'Is Anne Frank in hell?' because I knew your religion tells you the answer is yes. If you would have answered YES in the beginning instead of avoiding the question, I would have criticized it, and give you a few followup questions. 2) It's very nice to say that in heaven there is no time and age, but a newborn baby can't talk, can't understand, and even more - he wants his mother. So... when that baby is in heaven, there are three options: a) The baby stays in that age, and he cannot talk nor understand. b) The baby can talk and understand. Non of them are reasonable options. You said option (a) is wrong, but if option (b) is right, then that baby is not really himself anymore, because our personality is very much affected from our life experience, our location, etc. Additionally, as I understand it, in heaven you get to meet your loved ones that died. Let's say a 6 year old dies and goes to heaven, and his parents die too, 10 years later. If he stays 6 years old, then he doesn't get to live such a perfect eternal life, and as you said, if he is 'ageless' and he meets his parents - he is not the child that left them. If you can be happy in heaven, when for example, your children are in hell, that means you are either a horrible horrible person or your being is changed in heaven. 3) First of all - loving someone and accepting him IS A CONDITION! Second, you said 'we all have an inborn sinful nature' and ' you were already doomed to Hell' meaning: because we were born with a sinful nature we are doomed to hell. This is immoral for many reasons: -God punishes us for our NATURE! THE NATURE WE WERE BORN WITH! -we are punished because of somebody else's 'crime'! And because we are all the sons of Adam according to the bible, it's like a person being accused of say, Murder, and as a result all his children get punished as well, and their children, and theirs and theirs... for eternity! -God creates our nature, and then punishes us for it. It's like punishing someone for being black, nobody chooses to be born black. -Our sinful nature is supposed to be some kind of punishment. Who does it punish and why? -If God creates sinful natures and gives them to babies, he is actually PUNISHING BABIES. -if our nature is created, and nature=personality, then not accepting Christianity is also a part of that nature, isn't it? 4) 'No father here is denying his Children, his children are denying him. Gods children on this Earth are denying and hating him, not the other way around. He is always there for those who choose to turn around.' You are missing the whole point!! No real father accepts and loves his children only if they accept and love him!! A father loves his children NO MATTER WHAT! If you are angry at your father, leave the house and deny him as his father, should he hate you for that and hate you too? 5) I asked you to give a good explanation for why god permits suffering, because I think there is not one. You said: 'we cannot know what the outcome of every single little thing that happens will be.'- meaning: these things turn out to be good. Yet, your examples were weak and didn't support your point. You can't expect me to not ask for a GOOD example. If you fail to provide one, that means your argument is incorrect and I win in this specific question. Voters, my opponent is the one who is being intellectually dishonest and philosophically illegitimate. Please read carefully. When I claim there is no good reason for god to permit suffering, it is YOUR job to show just a single example of when there is a good reason for god to permit suffering. You can't claim something, but not provide any good arguments to support it. I would like my opponent to explain, in the comments perhaps, 'this sentence: 'the logical version of the problem of suffering has failed, mainly due to this burden of proof.' What proof? 6) I did not misquote you. In fact, here is a bigger part of what you wrote: ' God created us out of love and a desire to have a relationship with us and wants to hear from us. -----Prayer isn't so we can change Gods plan. -------There are many instances in the Bible where praying to God will change someone spiritually.' The definition of the word 'prayer' is: 'a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.' - If it is a request for help, it's purpose IS to change god's plan. If God wants to have a relationship with me, he should communicate with me. Saying god can communicate through the heart, is like saying 'God can communicate through an apple'. It is not understandable, and it is meaningless and extremely abstract. 'This quote also indicates my opponent has some very serious emotional ties with this question, which, again, I would be happy to provide counseling for at a different time.' You are implying that I am somewhat 'mad' at god, which I don't appreciate. I also want to add it is very arrogant of you to offer me counseling. I highlighted that part of the sentence, not because of anger, but because I spoke to many Christians. Many of them said God did not communicate with them. You are trying to make me look emotional and unprofessional, and I don't respect that. 7) I was born and raised in Israel. I promise you I know this story well, and your explanation of the story doesn't contradict what I said, but actually supports the reason for why this question isn't a paradox: 'because 'we cannot know what the outcome of every single little thing that happens will be'- maybe if you kill your mother it will make someone reunite with his mother after hearing this story' - which is based on your arguments! If you would ask me a question of; If God spoke to you, would you believe in him? is it intellectually honest for me to say it is a paradox because I don't believe in God? Of course not. You said so yourself, that god has an infinite mind, and he is so complex he created this whole universe... he actually didn't stop World War 2 from happening, so would it be that odd for him to ask you to kill your mother? I don't think so. 8) same as above 9) I'll just say that according to your argument God also doesn't punish people who die from cancer, for example. It is just wrong. 10) a) Nonsense. The fact that we don't have a clear understanding of the universe doesn't mean there are no natural explanations other than God. It is just so easy to say: God did it. But God? The amazingly complex creature who is invisible, figure less, has mind reading abilities and future knowing abilities... he just exists, with not explanation. If a police finds a murdered man, they shouldn't make up an explanation. They should look around for answers, test, look for evidence, and if there are non - say it honestly: We don't know. I could also say that the universe just exists, and that it is infinite and eternal, but it would not be based on evidence, and will contradict science. If you can say this theory is incorrect, than your god theory is incorrect too. b) If you mean for example: our morality tells us not to kill, then your argument is very weak, because it can all be explained by evolution and nature. c) Look, I am not a physicist. It would also be better if you would have provided a source. I read about the weak force, and from what I understand now, without that weak force energy couldn't turn into mass, meaning the big bang couldn't have happened without it. The fact that it also permits life (and I guess other things too) doesn't matter. Voters Due to Technical problems I didn't post my Round 3 entry. I ask you to take into your consideration that there are no conclusions, and to pay attention mainly to the first two rounds. Thank you! And to my opponent - I enjoyed this debate very much and learned a lot, thank you and good luck in your future debates.