Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

But I will answer what I perceive your larger point to be, namely, that if they did end up in Hell---that this was somehow God's fault.
Your perception is mistaken.

You said that he "put them out of their misery" - for the ones that go to hell, this is false.
If we hated God in this life, why would die and magically start loving Him? Why would we want to dwell with the one we hate in heaven? The problem, of course, is that while the person cannot live with God, they cannot live without God [...]
Here's an idea: instead of forcing them to exist in heaven or forcing them to exist in hell, he could cause them to cease to exist altogether?

Wouldn't that solve both problems? He wouldn't have to tolerate sin in his presence, and the sinner wouldn't have to experience eternal torment.
That is always their free choice. God did not force them to hate Him.
What about the people that don't hate him, and merely don't believe he exists, having not been convinced by him of the need to repent?
 
Your perception is mistaken.

You said that he "put them out of their misery" - for the ones that go to hell, this is false.
No, actually, it isn't. But stopping them from sinning further, he stopped them from creating a bigger Hell for themselves---that is to say--even more misery.
Here's an idea: instead of forcing them to exist in heaven or forcing them to exist in hell, he could cause them to cease to exist altogether?
Which would make God arbitrary. You take Hell out of the picture; freedom is a joke.
Wouldn't that solve both problems? He wouldn't have to tolerate sin in his presence, and the sinner wouldn't have to experience eternal torment.
Because the sinner is in eternal torment because of their own choices. Don't you get that? God gave us freedom. We have to face the consequences of our choices. There is a connection between poor outcomes and poor choices.
What about the people that don't hate him, and merely don't believe he exists, having not been convinced by him of the need to repent?
They are without excuse. Every person who has ever or will ever live is given at least one chance. All people who have ever or will ever exist---are given sufficient grace to come to a saving knowledge of God. (I am speaking as a Catholic here. I am not sure all Christians would agree with this. I cannot speak for them.) Note that this does not entail they will profess perfect Christian doctrine or even be able to make a formal profession in Jesus Christ. (Again speaking for myself as a Catholic, not for other Christians.) Only that God gives everyone sufficient grace to come to a saving knowledge of Him--and to seek His truth.

In other words----I believe that atheism is a choice---that is----there are no true atheists. In order to be atheist, you have to work against God, you have to deny what you know to be true. Atheism is, from my perspective--the result of repressing the truth, repressing what one knows in their hearts to be true. One has to work to be an atheist.

This all being said---I have nothing to say about your eternal destiny--that is--I make no judgement about you. You are in God's hands. If God chooses to give you heaven---great. I rejoice in God's mercy. I make no ultimate judgement on anyone's eternal destiny--even if I can't stand them--like--say--Joe Biden or AOC. Even them--if God chooses to grant them salvation, great. I rejoice in God's love, mercy and power to save.
 
Last edited:
No, actually, it isn't. But stopping them from sinning further, he stopped them from creating a bigger Hell for themselves---that is to say--even more misery.
So they aren't miserable in hell?
Which would make God arbitrary. You take Hell out of the picture; freedom is a joke.
Why?
The people that use their freedom the way he wants, get the reward; the ones that don't, don't.
Because the sinner is in eternal torment because of their own choices. Don't you get that? God gave us freedom. We have to face the consequences of our choices.
Why do the consequences have to be eternal?
We make a finite number of choices in our lives, each with finite consequences.
They are without excuse.
You think that, of your god refuses to convince me - when he knows how to do so, and is able to do so - it is still somehow my fault that I don't believe?

This is utterly inane.
In other words----I believe that atheism is a choice---that is----there are no true atheists.
Depends what you mean by atheist.

1. "I lack belief in a god/s."
2. "I actively believe that a god/s does not exist."
3. "I actively believe that a god/s exists, and seek to thrwart its will."

?
Atheism is, from my perspective--the result of repressing the truth, repressing what one knows in their hearts to be true. One has to work to be an atheist.
Well, you are entitled to... the Bible's opinion.
 
So they aren't miserable in hell?
Well of course they are! Just less so than they would be had God not put an end to their lives--and allowed them to keep sinning.
Why? The people that use their freedom the way he wants, get the reward; the ones that don't, don't.
But they do not face the consequences of their actions if God wipes them out of existence.
Why do the consequences have to be eternal?
Ask the people in Hell! Pride is a powerful thing indeed! That is the irony of it: the people in Hell----are the ones who keep themselves there for all eternity. Hell isn't eternal because God has decreed it so, it is eternal because that is what the person in Hell wills. As God respects our freedom, God gives them what they want.
We make a finite number of choices in our lives, each with finite consequences.
Again, Hell is eternal because the person in Hell perpetually wills to be there. Since God wills what we will--as He gave us freedom--God respects their choice.
You think that, of your god refuses to convince me - when he knows how to do so, and is able to do so - it is still somehow my fault that I don't believe?
Well, here is the thing: do you really think everything that exists---just popped into existence by itself?

Science proceeds from the premise of causes and effects--that things happen for a reason--and we can uncover the laws of nature through scientific inquiry and analysis. At no time has any scientist ever said of anything "There is no reason that happened. It just happened by magic." Then when it comes to the universe, the same scientist says "Well, the universe popped into existence by itself."

Don't tell me there are no convincing arguments for God's existence, sir. There are--you just don't want to see them.
Depends what you mean by atheist.

1. "I lack belief in a god/s."
2. "I actively believe that a god/s does not exist."
3. "I actively believe that a god/s exists, and seek to thrwart its will."

Well, you are entitled to... the Bible's opinion.
As are you!
 
Well of course they are!
So he didn't put them out of their misery.

You know what would have? Putting them out of existence.
But they do not face the consequences of their actions if God wipes them out of existence.
And it is fair that they experience eternal consequences for a finite life of decisions, is it?
Ask the people in Hell! Pride is a powerful thing indeed! That is the irony of it: the people in Hell----are the ones who keep themselves there for all eternity. Hell isn't eternal because God has decreed it so, it is eternal because that is what the person in Hell wills. As God respects our freedom, God gives them what they want.
The people in hell would rather not exist at all than be there.
Again, Hell is eternal because the person in Hell perpetually wills to be there.
See above.
Well, here is the thing: do you really think everything that exists---just popped into existence by itself?
This is an argument from ignorance.
A logical fallacy which your god, if he exists and knows everything, knows that it is proper to reject.
Science proceeds from the premise of causes and effects--that things happen for a reason--and we can uncover the laws of nature through scientific inquiry and analysis. At no time has any scientist ever said of anything "There is no reason that happened. It just happened by magic." Then when it comes to the universe, the same scientist says "Well, the universe popped into existence by itself."
I will correct this: science says that things in the universe happen with cause and effect.
Science only works in the universe.
Don't tell me there are no convincing arguments for God's existence, sir. There are--you just don't want to see them.
If I find a fault in an argument, that's not me "not wanting to be convinced".
That's the apologist failing to convince me.

You are a football player blaming the opposing goalkeeper for not letting your shot go past him.
Grow up.
As are you!
I do not hold the Bible's opinion - I can think for myself.

There are things that you find so ridiculous that you cannot choose to believe them.
Christianity is one such, for me.
 
So he didn't put them out of their misery.
He stopped them from creating greater misery for themselves and for others.
You know what would have? Putting them out of existence.
And why does God owe it to them to do that? Why should they not face the consequences of their actions?
And it is fair that they experience eternal consequences for a finite life of decisions, is it?
How are you defining "fair?" Who are you to tell God what is fair and what is unfair--unless you accept the moral standards the same God has revealed--which you do not?

See, again, sir, you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't call God unfair without judging him by the very standards of morality you reject.
I will correct this: science says that things in the universe happen with cause and effect. Science only works in the universe.
Yeah---who said otherwise? God is outside of the universe. Who do you think created the universe and the laws within? Who do you think created time?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The Divine Tea Pot?

It is a fact that the universe follows certain laws of nature that science seeks to uncover. From where do those laws come?

The Easter Bunny? The Tooth Fairy? Santa Clause? The government?

Wait--actually you probably DO believe the government created the universe and the laws within. That is why as a liberal, you think the government is the solution to every problem that exists... No wonder liberals never met a problem they didn't think could be solved with more government!
If I find a fault in an argument, that's not me "not wanting to be convinced". That's the apologist failing to convince me.
No, that is you refusing to be convinced. Again, the idea that the universe just popped into being from nothing, the idea that laws exist from no law giver--is absurd.

Sir, the truth is--you have far more Faith than I ever did. You see, it takes far more Faith to believe that a universe can create itself from nothing, and create laws, than it does to believe in God.

And I am done debating this. You want to debate theism go to the appropriate boards. Once again, I am not the one who brought God into this, sir, YOU ARE.

Let's get back to abortion.
 
Last edited:
He stopped them from creating greater misery for themselves and for others.
"Putting out of misery" = eliminating misery.
Usually by killing, but there's no such thing as true death, in your paradigm.
And why does God owe it to them to do that?
I never said he did.
Why should they not face the consequences of their actions?
How about making them face it for a time equal to the length of their life, then removing them from existence?
How are you defining "fair?" Who are you to tell God what is fair and what is unfair--unless you accept the moral standards the same God has revealed--which you do not?
1. Judging Yahweh's actions by his own standards is not a judgement at all.
2. Why am I not allowed to hold an opinion on his (alleged) actions?
See, again, sir, you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't call God unfair without judging him by the very standards of morality you reject.
Actually, I can only judge a person's actions by standards other than theirs.
Would you judge <insert heinous criminal> by their own standards? No.
Yeah---who said otherwise? God is outside of the universe. Who do you think created the universe and the laws within? Who do you think created time?
I see no reason to think it was a "who".
This is a loaded question - another fallacy.
It is a fact that the universe follows certain laws of nature that science seeks to uncover. From where do those laws come?
I don't know where the laws come from.
I don't even knowing that them "coming from" something else, is a sensible concept.

Does my ignorance serve as evidence for your case?
No, that is you refusing to be convinced.
Should I be convinced by a faulty argument?
Again, the idea that the universe just popped into being from nothing, the idea that laws exist from no law giver--is absurd.
1. To you.
2. The absurdity of one explanation does not validate any other.
3. "Not absurd" is not the same as "true".
Sir, the truth is--you have far more Faith than I ever did. You see, it takes far more Faith to believe that a universe can create itself from nothing, and create laws, than it does to believe in God.
I don't believe this.
I have no beliefs about how the universe and its laws came to be.
 
Not where abortion is legal.

Consent to sex is not consent to delivery.
Doesnt change the fact. Just means some.countries its legal and some it isnt.
Nedsk is right. In pro-choice the woman has brought about the offspring so she has made her choice. What you are implying is she can kill her offspring if she chooses to.
 
There are actually people who believe that animals should have the rights of humans and thus want the American court system to bestow personhood on them. If you want to see what I am talking about Google the above.

The Bible refers to them as living souls.

Question to abortion supporters: why should we grant animals personhood status when they are clearly NOT persons,

What is a person?

when we refuse to recognize actual people who ARE persons and their rights? Why should animals have more rights than unborn children?
 
There are actually people who believe that animals should have the rights of humans and thus want the American court system to bestow personhood on them. If you want to see what I am talking about Google the above.

The court ruled 5-2 that elephants are not persons. That means two judges----actually believe animals should be granted the rights of persons.

What has this to do with abortion? Everything. It seems keeping an elephant confined to a Zoo is cruel. Thus, we have to give animals personhood so they can have our rights. Ironically, most of these radicals who want animals to have rights also support abortion.

Question to abortion supporters: why should we grant animals personhood status when they are clearly NOT persons, when we refuse to recognize actual people who ARE persons and their rights? Why should animals have more rights than unborn children?
It’s Animal Farm! Four legs good. Two legs bad.

These stories just keep getting crazier and crazier. I think we’re being punked. Provoked. Could it be, they’re trying to manufacture a rebellion?
 
Back
Top