Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.

2.) God approaches you. He claims to be all powerful and wants you to place all of your trust in him. If you do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to paradise. If you won't/can't do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to a place of torment.


Do you see a moral difference between these two scenarios? If so, please explain your reasoning. Thanks.
The major difference that I perceive is that the first scenario is a lose-lose situation for me. A victimization either way and the sinning robber profits either way he still gets the money with me dead or alive. Sure if I give him the money and he is an honorable robber who does not mind witnesses then I get to live in a humiliated state and poorer to boot.

The second scenario offers a way out from ***ured destruction much like someone warning the bridge is out ahead, those who take the detour are saved from the existing peril which lays ahead and likely the 'warner' gains a living friend in the 'warnee'.

That's how I now view that.

In another thread in this post the Garden scene is brought up. While it is true that they were commanded to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God did not threaten them with death but rather warned them of the consequence of such an action. I see it more like a parent telling a kid you can eat anything out of the frige but nothing from under the sink because it will kill you.

and that's how I now view that not that you asked however...

God-Free, I am curious when did you stop believing? Was it about the time someone said something different than what you were being taught at Church? Things just did not add up in your head? If you'd rather you can PM me or if it is none of my business, please tell me so and I will drop it.

Respect and blessings,

MacG